Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: doi:10.22028/D291-36851
Title: Meridional ocular magnification after cataract surgery with toric and non-toric intraocular lenses
Author(s): Langenbucher, Achim
Hoffmann, Peter
Cayless, Alan
Wendelstein, Jascha
Bolz, Matthias
Szentmáry, Nóra
Language: English
Title: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Publisher/Platform: Springer Nature
Year of Publication: 2022
Free key words: Ocular magnification
Image distortion
Aniseikonia
4 × 4 matrix calculation
Paraxial optics
Vergence formula
DDC notations: 610 Medicine and health
Publikation type: Journal Article
Abstract: Background Overall ocular magnification (OOM) and meridional ocular magnification (MOM) with consequent image distortions have been widely ignored in modern cataract surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate OOM and MOM in a general situation with an astigmatic refracting surface. Methods From a large dataset containing biometric measurements (IOLMaster 700) of both eyes of 9734 patients prior to cataract surgery, the equivalent (PIOLeq) and cylindric power (PIOLcyl) were derived for the HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae for emmetropia. Based on the pseudophakic eye model, OOM and MOM were extracted using 4 × 4 matrix algebra for the corrected eye (with PIOLeq/PIOLcyl (scenario 1) or with PIOLeq and spectacle correction of the residual refractive cylinder (scenario 2) or with PIOLeq remaining the residual uncorrected refractive cylinder (blurry image) (scenario 3)). In each case, the relative image distortion of MOM/OOM was calculated in %. Results On average, PIOLeq/PIOLcyl was 20.73 ± 4.50 dpt/1.39 ± 1.09 dpt for HofferQ, 20.75 ± 4.23 dpt/1.29 ± 1.01 dpt for Haigis, and 20.63 ± 4.31 dpt/1.26 ± 0.98 dpt for Castrop formulae. Cylindric refraction for scenario 2 was 0.91 ± 0.70 dpt, 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, and 0.89 ± 0.69 dpt, respectively. OOM/MOM (× 1000) was 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07, 16.56 ± 1.20/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.56 ± 1.20/0.08 ± 0.07 mm/mrad with HofferQ; 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06, 16.64 ± 1.16/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.64 ± 1.16/0.07 ± 0.06 mm/mrad with Haigis; and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05, 16.72 ± 1.18/0.18 ± 0.14, and 16.72 ± 1.18/0.07 ± 0.05 mm/mrad with Castrop formulae. Mean/95% quantile relative image distortion was 0.49/1.23%, 0.41/1.05%, and 0.40/0.98% for scenarios 1 and 3 and 1.09/2.71%, 1.07/2.66%, and 1.06/2.64% for scenario 2 with HofferQ, Haigis, and Castrop formulae. Conclusion Matrix representation of the pseudophakic eye allows for a simple and straightforward prediction of OOM and MOM of the pseudophakic eye after cataract surgery. OOM and MOM could be used for estimating monocular image distortions, or differences in overall or meridional magnifications between eyes.
DOI of the first publication: 10.1007/s00417-022-05740-4
URL of the first publication: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00417-022-05740-4
Link to this record: urn:nbn:de:bsz:291--ds-368518
hdl:20.500.11880/33478
http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-36851
ISSN: 1435-702X
0721-832X
Date of registration: 18-Jul-2022
Faculty: M - Medizinische Fakultät
Department: M - Augenheilkunde
Professorship: M - Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Achim Langenbucher
M Prof. Dr. med. Nóra Szentmáry
Collections:SciDok - Der Wissenschaftsserver der Universität des Saarlandes

Files for this record:
File Description SizeFormat 
Langenbucher2022_Article_MeridionalOcularMagnificationA.pdf2,96 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons