Visual and Refractive Outcomes after Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery in Nanophthalmic Eyes

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine 2024-09, Vol.13 (19), p.5852
• Main Authors: Lai, Tracy H T, Tse, Jeffrey Y T, Chan, Jacqueline W T, Li, Kenneth K W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Artificial intelligence; Biometrics; Care and treatment; Cataract; Cataracts; Cornea; Eye diseases; Eye surgery; Glaucoma; Intraocular lenses; Local anesthesia; Patient outcomes; Patients; Phacoemulsification; Surgery; Visual acuity
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm13195852

: The aim of this study was to report the visual and refractive outcomes of nanophthalmic eyes undergoing phacoemulsification at a tertiary cataract center. This is a prospective consecutive case series. Patients with an axial length of ≤20.5 mm who underwent phacoemulsification at a tertiary cataract center in Hong Kong were included. Eyes undergoing extracapsular cataract extraction or with a previous history of intraocular surgery including trabeculectomy were excluded. The outcome measures were the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and refractive status at four months post-operation. Different intraocular lens formulas were used to compare the refractive outcomes. Out of 22,847 cataract surgeries performed from May 2011 to March 2020, 14 eyes (0.06%) of 10 patients had axial lengths of ≤20.5 mm and underwent phacoemulsification. The mean axial length was 20.13 ± 0.44 mm. Out of these fourteen eyes, three (21%) had postoperative myopic shift with spherical equivalent refraction of more than or equal to 1D compared to the original target. Eleven eyes (79%) had postoperative refraction within 0.5D compared to the original target. Nine out of fourteen eyes (64%) had improvements in postoperative vision. There were no intraoperative complications. When comparing the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulas, there was no significant difference in the absolute errors between the five formulas ( = 0.072). There was no significant difference in the mean absolute errors between the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulas. Myopic shift was not uncommon, and more studies on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for short eyes are warranted.