Utility of the optical quality analysis system for decision-making in Nd: YAG laser posterior capsulotomy in patients with light posterior capsule opacity.
Capsulotomy
Objective scattering index
Posterior capsule opacification
Visual function 14 index
Visual outcomes
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2021
06 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
30
09
2019
accepted:
29
10
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate whether the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) can serve as a valuable additional indicator for appropriate posterior capsulotomy referral. One hundred and five eyes from 96 patients undergoing capsulotomy were divided into precapsulotomy logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group and logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group. CDVA, and the Visual Function 14 index (VF-14) score were estimated before and 1 month after capsulotomy. The objective scattering index (OSI) value was measured by using the OQAS. Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) severity was assessed with Evaluation of PCO 2000 (EPCO 2000) software. In logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group, the correlations of OSI, logMAR CDVA, EPCO score and VF-14 score were very strong preoperatively. In logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, preoperatively, OSI was correlated with logMAR CDVA (r = 0.451), EPCO score (r = 0.789), and VF-14 score (r = 0.852). LogMAR CDVA has weak correlation with VF-14 score (r = - 0.384) and EPCO score (r = 0.566). VF-14 score was correlated with EPCO score (r = - 0.669). In the logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, there was no significant difference in logMAR CDVA between precapsulotomy and postcapsulotomy (P > 0.05). In the two groups, all the other optical quality parameters were significantly improved after capsulotomy (P < 0.05). In logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group, the area under the curve of the ROC of the OSI was 0.996 (P = 0.000). In logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, the area under the curve of the ROC of the OSI was 0.943 (P = 0.000). The OSI was useful for evaluating of PCO and prediction of beneficial capsulotomy. Especially for patients with slight PCO and better visual acuity, OSI is more valuable than CDVA and completely objective examination. The study protocol was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Register: ChiCTR1800018842 (Registered Date: October 13th, 2018).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A prospective cohort study was performed to evaluate whether the Optical Quality Analysis System (OQAS) can serve as a valuable additional indicator for appropriate posterior capsulotomy referral.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred and five eyes from 96 patients undergoing capsulotomy were divided into precapsulotomy logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group and logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group. CDVA, and the Visual Function 14 index (VF-14) score were estimated before and 1 month after capsulotomy. The objective scattering index (OSI) value was measured by using the OQAS. Posterior capsule opacification (PCO) severity was assessed with Evaluation of PCO 2000 (EPCO 2000) software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group, the correlations of OSI, logMAR CDVA, EPCO score and VF-14 score were very strong preoperatively. In logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, preoperatively, OSI was correlated with logMAR CDVA (r = 0.451), EPCO score (r = 0.789), and VF-14 score (r = 0.852). LogMAR CDVA has weak correlation with VF-14 score (r = - 0.384) and EPCO score (r = 0.566). VF-14 score was correlated with EPCO score (r = - 0.669). In the logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, there was no significant difference in logMAR CDVA between precapsulotomy and postcapsulotomy (P > 0.05). In the two groups, all the other optical quality parameters were significantly improved after capsulotomy (P < 0.05). In logMAR CDVA > 0.1 group, the area under the curve of the ROC of the OSI was 0.996 (P = 0.000). In logMAR CDVA ≤0.1 group, the area under the curve of the ROC of the OSI was 0.943 (P = 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The OSI was useful for evaluating of PCO and prediction of beneficial capsulotomy. Especially for patients with slight PCO and better visual acuity, OSI is more valuable than CDVA and completely objective examination.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The study protocol was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Register: ChiCTR1800018842 (Registered Date: October 13th, 2018).
Identifiants
pubmed: 33407218
doi: 10.1186/s12886-020-01710-8
pii: 10.1186/s12886-020-01710-8
pmc: PMC7788843
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7Subventions
Organisme : Scientific Research Starting Foundation for Ph.D. from Liaoning Province
ID : 2019JH3/10100283
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81600777
Références
Am J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct;136(4):720-6
pubmed: 14516813
Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):703-9
pubmed: 10201590
Eye (Lond). 2005 Jul;19(7):788-94
pubmed: 15375370
J Am Intraocul Implant Soc. 1984 Summer;10(3):318-23
pubmed: 6480484
Int J Ophthalmol. 2013 Oct 18;6(5):618-25
pubmed: 24195036
BMC Ophthalmol. 2014 Nov 18;14:131
pubmed: 25403826
Exp Eye Res. 2002 Mar;74(3):337-47
pubmed: 12014915
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 Nov;46(11):4016-23
pubmed: 16249475
Am J Ophthalmol. 2005 Nov;140(5):927-30
pubmed: 16310479
Int J Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 18;11(4):656-661
pubmed: 29675387
J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:9852195
pubmed: 29109868
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 May;40(5):716-21
pubmed: 24767907
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 04;10(11):e0142189
pubmed: 26536120
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep;96(9):1204-10
pubmed: 22790434
Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Nov;100(11):1530-1535
pubmed: 26903522
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012 Nov-Dec;22(6):943-9
pubmed: 22467589
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 03;10(2):e0117587
pubmed: 25646846
J Opt Soc Am A. 1987 Jun;4(6):1109-14
pubmed: 3598754
J Ophthalmol. 2020 Feb 29;2020:7505016
pubmed: 32280532
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010 Mar;51(3):1547-53
pubmed: 19737885
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Apr;47(4):1710-6
pubmed: 16565413
J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997 Dec;23(10):1515-20
pubmed: 9456409
Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2013 Nov;88(11):415-22
pubmed: 24157319
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Mar;31(3):534-42
pubmed: 15811741
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Feb;159(2):241-7.e2
pubmed: 25448993
Am J Ophthalmol. 1983 Oct;96(4):435-8
pubmed: 6624824
Int J Ophthalmol. 2015 Oct 18;8(5):1043-50
pubmed: 26558224
Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Apr;155(4):629-635, 635.e1-2
pubmed: 23317652
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:925217
pubmed: 26176015
Control Clin Trials. 1999 Dec;20(6):573-600
pubmed: 10588299
Ophthalmic Surg. 1985 Jan;16(1):24-8
pubmed: 3838376
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 Jan;42(1):64-72
pubmed: 11133849
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004 Dec;30(12):2510-6
pubmed: 15617917
Acta Med Okayama. 2012;66(2):101-10
pubmed: 22525468
BMC Ophthalmol. 2018 Nov 7;18(1):290
pubmed: 30404600
Curr Eye Res. 2018 Jun;43(6):696-701
pubmed: 29630420
Ophthalmology. 2013 Jan;120(1):20-33
pubmed: 23062651
Ophthalmology. 2008 May;115(5):808-814.e1
pubmed: 17900695
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 04;6(2):e16823
pubmed: 21326868
Clin Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar 25;9:557-61
pubmed: 25848207
Korean J Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct;32(5):369-375
pubmed: 30311459
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Jul 29;52(8):5587-97
pubmed: 21622703
Clin Exp Optom. 2009 Sep;92(5):412-5
pubmed: 19549226
Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2014 Summer;3(2):45-50
pubmed: 25738159
J Fr Ophtalmol. 2016 Dec;39(10):866-871
pubmed: 27843086
BMC Ophthalmol. 2018 Sep 3;18(1):231
pubmed: 30176839
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Nov;44(11):4665-9
pubmed: 14578383