Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fifty one eyes of forty patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria attending the
outpatients department of Hindu Rao Hospital were selected for our study.
All of them underwent cataract extraction with PCIOL implantation surgery and
Age Distribution:
41 - 50 yrs 10 19.6%
51 - 60 yrs 20 39.2%
61 - 70 yrs 17 33.3%
71 - 80 yrs 4 7.8%
Total 51 100%
Median 58.00
Min Max 43 78
48
Observation and Result
41 - 50 yrs
7.8% 51 - 60 yrs
19.6%
61 - 70 yrs
33.3%
71 - 80 yrs
39.2%
Overall age distribution of the patients included in the study is shown in table 1 and
figure: 1
The oldest patient was 78 years old and the youngest 43 years old.
49
Observation and Result
Sex Distribution:
Sex Frequency %
F 29 56.9%
M 22 43.1%
Total 51 100%
Gender distribution F M
43.1%
56.9%
There were 29(56.9%) females and 22(43.1%) males in the study group
50
Observation and Result
Left 22 43.1%
Right 29 56.9%
Total 51 100%
Right
43.1%
56.9%
Frequency of left eye operated was 22(43.1%) and that of right eye operated was
29(56.9%).
51
Observation and Result
VA Frequency %
6/36 2 4.0%
6/60 15 29.4%
4/60 7 13.7%
3/60 4 7.8%
2/60 2 4.0%
1/60 7 13.7%
CF 6 1 2.0%
CF 5 3 5.9%
CF 4 1 2.0%
CF 3 5 9.8%
CF 2 4 7.8%
Total 51 100%
VA
40%
29.4%
30%
20%
13.7% 13.7%
Series1
9.8%
7.8% 7.8%
10% 5.9%
4.0% 3.9%
2.00% 2.0%
0%
Majority of the patients 15 (29.4%) had visual acuity of 6/60 and minimum 1(2%)
52
Observation and Result
BCVA Frequency %
6/24 5 9.8%
6/36 2 3.9%
6/60 2 3.9%
4/60 1 2.0%
3/60 1 2.0%
2/60 4 7.8%
1/60 12 23.5%
6/60 14 27.5%
CF 6 2 4.0%
CF 5 4 7.8%
CF 3 2 4.0%
CF 6 3 5.9%
Total 51 100%
BCVA
40%
30% 27.5%
23.5%
% of cases
20%
9.8% 9.8%
10% 7.8%
5.9%
3.9% 3.9% 3.9%
2.0% 2.0%
0%
6/24 6/36 6/60 4/60 3/60 2/60 1/60 CF 6 CF 5 CF 3 CF 2
Majority of the patients 14 (27.5%) had BCVA of 6/60 and minimum 1(2%) patient
53
Observation and Result
IOP
50.0%
35.3%
40.0% 31.4%
% of Cases
30.0%
17.6% 15.7%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
12 14 16 20
Majority of the patient having IOP of 14 mmHg (35.3%). IOP of the patient fall in
54
Observation and Result
SL Frequency %
NS II 21 41.2%
NS III 29 56.9%
NS IV 1 2.0%
Total 51 100%
SL
NS 2
2.0% NS 3
NS 4
41.2%
56.9%
There were 29 (56.9%) patient with nuclear sclerosis grade III, 21(41.2%) patient with
nuclear sclerosis grade II followed by 1(2.0%) with nuclear sclerosis grade IV.
Fundus Frequency %
WNL 51 100.0%
Total 51 100%
Figure 10: Mean Keratometric reading, Axial Length and AC depth in study
group.
30
26.96
25
20
Mean Values
15
10 7.68 7.61
5 2.52
0
K1 K2 AL AC depth
The mean K1 reading was 7.68 0.33, with minimum value of 7.01 mm and
maximum of 8.50 mm.
The mean K2 reading was 7.61 0.23 with a minimum number of patient having
reading 7.00 mm and maximum 8.23 mm
The mean axial length of the patient were 26.96 1.32 mm, falling in the range of
25.06 mm to 31.19 mm
Mean AC depth was 2.52 0.21 mm, with maximum value of 3.14 mm and minimum
of 2.11 mm
56
Observation and Result
Table 10: Mean of IOL power by SRK-T, Hoffer Q and Haigis formula
Figure 11: Mean IOL power by SRK-T, Hoffer Q and Haigis formula
16
14
12
9.87
Mean Vlaues
10 9.24
8.94
0
IOL power by SRK-T IOL power by Hoffer-Q IOL power by Haigis
The Mean IOL power by SRK-T was 9.87 4.26, falling in the range of (-)3.0 - 17.05
The Mean IOL power by Hoffer-Q 8.94 4.81, falling in the range of (-)4.5 - 17.06
The Mean IOL power by Haigis 9.24 4.68, falling in the range of (-)4.5 - 17.06
57
Observation and Result
Table 11: Mean of Formula predicted spherical equivalent (SE) by all the
formulae
Formula predicted SE by
0.01 0.11 0.00 (-)0.23 - 0.25
SRK-T
Formula predicted SE by
(-)0.00 0.86 (-)0.01 (-)0.15 - 0.15
Hoffer Q
Formula predicted SE by
(-)0.00 0.10 0.01 (-)0.17 - 0.16
Haigis
Figure 12: Mean of Formula predicted spherical equivalent (SE) by all the
formulae
0.02
0.015
Mean Values
0.01
0.01
0.005
0 0
0
Formula predicted SE by Formula predicted SE by Formula predicted SE by
SRK-T Hoffer Q Haigis
The mean Formula predicted SE by SRK-T in study group was 0.01 0.11, with
The mean Formula predicted SE by Hoffer Q in study group was (-)0.00 0.86 with
The mean Formula predicted SE by Haigis in study group (-)0.00 0.10 with min
58
Observation and Result
Post-op VA at 1 Post-op VA at 3
Post-op VA at 1 week
month month
VA
Frequenc Frequenc Frequenc
% % %
y y y
6/36 1 2.0% 1 2.0% 1 2.0%
6/18 4 7.8% 4 7.8% 4 7.8%
6/9 13 25.5% 8 15.7% 8 15.7%
6/6 33 64.7% 38 74.5% 38 74.5%
Total 51 100% 51 100% 51 100%
Post-op VA at 1 week
100% Post-op VA at 1 month
Post-op VA at 3 month
74.5%
74.5%
80%
64.7%
60%
% of Cases
40%
25.5%
15.7%
15.7%
20%
7.8%
7.8%
7.8%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
0%
6/36 6/18 6/9 6/6
patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/18 and
59
Observation and Result
(15.7%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of
(15.7%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of
60
Observation and Result
Table 13: The mean Difference between Actual postoperative SE and formula
predicted SE
-0.4
-0.41
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7 -0.64
The mean 2SD of the difference between the formula predicted SE and the actual
The mean 2SD of the difference between the formula predicted SE and the actual
The mean 2SD of the difference between the formula predicted SE and the actual
61
Observation and Result
Table 14: Pearson correlation and P value for all the three formulae
Actual Post op SE
Pearson
p value
Correlation
difference between
formula predicted SE and Pearson
-0.967 <0.001
actual postop SE (SRK- Correlation
T)
difference between
formula predicted SE and Pearson
0.203 0.152
actual po op SE Correlation
(HofferQ)
Difference between
formula predicted SE and Pearson
0.231 0.104
actual post of SE Correlation
(Haigis)
62
Observation and Result
63
Observation and Result
The Pearson correlation was 0.203 for Hoffer-Q and 0.231 for Haigis thus there is no
The P value for all the three formulae were calculated by comparing it with the
formula used to implant the IOL in study group i.e with SRK-T.
Thus the P value for Hoffer Q and Haigis is 0.152 and 0.104 respectively which is
consider as 0.05.
64