10 D.F. Changcontrol, improved incision integrity is oneadvantage cited by proponents of micro-inci-sional cataract surgery. Regardless of size, pre-cise and proper wound construction is certainlyimportant for optimizing wound integrity.Newer accommodating IOL technologies willchallenge us with the requirement for largercataract incisions . Sutures and tissue adhe-sives will allow us to safely increase the size ofour clear corneal incisions, and the FS laser mayprove to be advantageous in this regard as well.Continuous Curvilinear CapsulotomyLong acknowledged by many as the single mostimportant step of our phaco procedure, the cap-sulorhexis offers many beneﬁts. By allowing usto trap and encapsulate the optic and both hap-tics, IOL centration is virtually assured [7, 8].An overlapping capsulorhexis enables the cap-sular bag to envelope the optic with a shrinkwrap effect, by which a sharp posterior opticedge will kink the posterior capsule [9, 10]. Thismechanical lens epithelial cell barrier reducesthe incidence of secondary membrane forma-tion. One of the most important beneﬁts of acapsulorhexis, however, is that of safety. Likean elastic waistband, the capsulorhexis canstretch without tearing during the multitude ofmaneuvers to which the capsular bag is sub-jected during cataract surgery. In contrast, asingle radial tear signiﬁcantly increases the riskof wraparound extension into the posteriorcapsule .Table 2.1 shows data on the incidence of ante-rior capsule tears reported from four contempo-rary studies [11–14]. The lowest published rate ofanterior capsular tears comes from Bob Osher’spersonal series of more than 2,600 consecutiveeyes, which was 0.8% . The incidence oftears occurring during the capsulorhexis step was0.5%. Of note was the fact that 48% of his ante-rior capsular tears eventually extended into theposterior capsule and 19% of cases with a torncapsulorhexis required an anterior vitrectomy.This study suggests that the rate of anterior cap-sular tear is reasonably low in the hands of anexpert surgeon, but that if it occurs, the risk ofsigniﬁcant complications is very high in even themost experienced hands.At the other end of the spectrum is the residentexperience reported by Unal and coauthors .The capsulorhexis is consistently cited by resi-dents as one of the most difﬁcult steps to master. The rate of torn capsulorhexis in the Unalseries was 5% and of irregular capsulorhexis was9%. The overall rate of posterior capsule ruptureand vitreous loss was 6.4% .Posterior Capsule Ruptureand Vitreous LossTable 2.2 and Fig. 2.1 list 13 studies of vitreousloss rates in non-resident series published dur-ing the decade between 1999 and 2009 [16–28]. Excluding Howard Gimbel’s exceptionallylow rate of 0.2% , the vitreous loss ratesTable 2.1 Incidence of anterior capsule tears [11–14]Study Date AC tear (%) NMuhtaseb 2004 2.8 1,000Marques 2006 0.8 2,646Unal 2006 5.0 296Olali 2007 5.6 358[AU1]Table 2.2 Published vitreous loss rates—1999–2009(0.2–4.4%) [16–28]Author Published % VitreouslossStudy sizeDesai 1999 4.4 18,454Martin 2000 1.3 3,000Lundstrom 2001 2.2 2,731Ionides 2001 2.9 1,420Gimbel 2001 0.2 18,470Tan 2002 3.6 2,538Chan 2003 1.1 8,230Androudi 2004 4.0 543Hyams 2005 2.0 1,364Ang 2006 1.1 2,727Zaidi 2007 1.1 1,000Mearza 2009 2.7 1,614Agrawal 2009 1.6 6,5646263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124t1.1t1.2t1.3t1.4t1.5t1.6t2.1t2.2t2.3t2.4t2.5t2.6t2.7t2.8t2.9t2.10t2.11t2.12t2.13t2.14t2.15t2.16t2.17
112 Current Outcomes with Cataract Surgery: Can We Do Better?20,00015,00010,0005,0002,5007,50012,50017,5000 1 2 3 4 5Vitreous loss, %0StudysizeDesai1999Androudi2004Tan2002Ionides2001Mearza2009Lundstrom2001Hyams2005Zaidi2007Ang2006Martin2000Agrawal2009Chan2003Gimbel2001Fig. 2.1 Studies of vitreous loss rates in non-residentseries published during the decade between 1999 and2009 [16–28]200015001000500250750125017501 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Vitreous loss, %0StudysizeBlomquist2002Carricondo2010Lee2009Dooley2006Rutar2009Bhagat2007Pot2008Blomquist2010Fig. 2.2 Studies of vitreous loss rates among residencyprograms that were published from 2002 to 2010 [15,29–35]consistently range from 1 to 4%. Table 2.3 andFig. 2.2 list eight studies of vitreous loss ratesamong residency programs that were publishedfrom 2002 to 2010 [15, 29–35]. With the excep-tion of one study, these rates consistentlyranged from 3 to 6%. The best current pub-lished data on vitreous loss rates come fromtwo recent studies of large patient populations.Narendran and coauthors’ 2009 report on theCataract National Dataset audit of 55,567operations from the United Kingdom (UK)reported a 1.9% rate of vitreous loss .Greenberg and coauthors’ 2010 publishedstudy of cataract surgery in 45,082 US VeteransAdministration Hospital cataract surgeries hada vitreous loss rate of 3.5% .Ultrasound Power/Endothelial Cell LossA number of studies have shown a reduction inultrasound energy when employing a phaco chopmethod compared to divide and conquer [38–41]. The correlation of phaco chop with reducedendothelial cell loss is less consistent in the lit-erature [39, 42, 43]. Part of the variability of theresults from these studies undoubtedly relates tothe varying density of the nuclei encountered.For example, Park and coauthors comparedphaco chop to stop-and-chop in a bilateral eyestudy involving 51 patients . There was nostatistical difference in mean effective phacotime (EPT) for moderately dense nuclei; how-ever, with dense nuclei, there was a statisticallysigniﬁcant reduction in mean EPT with chop-ping (P < 0.01). The speciﬁc comparison of stopand chop to pre-chopping may be more relevantin assessing the FS laser’s potential beneﬁt.Pereira and coauthors found that pre-choppingsigniﬁcantly reduced effective phaco time andphaco power in a small prospective trial of 50eyes .Despite these reported advantages to chop-ping, the 2010 Leaming survey of ASCRS mem-bers reported that only 32% of respondents wereperforming phaco chop, compared to 62% whowere performing divide-and-conquer. The factTable 2.3 Published vitreous loss rates residents—2002–2010 (1.3–6.1%) [15, 29–35]Author Published % Vitreous loss Study sizeBlomquist 2002 4.5 1,400Dooley 2006 4 100Bhagat 2007 5.4 755Pot 2008 1.3 982Rutar 2009 3.1 320Lee 2009 4.9 226Carricondo 2010 6.1 261Blomquist 2010 3.2 1,833125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168t3.1t3.2t3.3t3.4t3.5t3.6t3.7t3.8t3.9t3.10t3.11
12 D.F. Changthat the phaco chop technique is generally moredifﬁcult to learn may be an important factorunderlying these statistics. Reducing ultrasoundtime by pre-chopping and softening the nucleusis an important potential beneﬁt of FS laser cata-ract surgery. The denser the nucleus, the greaterthe ultrasound reduction should be, and themore likely a clinically signiﬁcant difference inendothelial cell loss would be found.Potential for ImprovingRefractive OutcomesSpherical Equivalent AccuracyMany factors must be successfully managed toachieve pseudophakic emmetropia. A majoradvance has been in the more accurate determi-nation of axial length with non-contact, partialcoherence interferometry [47–49]. Two variableIOL power calculation formulae have been suc-cessfully used for decades [50–52]. Moreadvanced formulae, such as those developed byHaigis and Holladay, incorporate additional vari-ables in an effort to better predict the effectivelens position . Table 2.4 summarizes six pub-lished studies that analyze refractive accuracy[49, 54–58]. Some of these series employed con-tact A-scan biometry, while others employed par-tial coherence interferometry. Even in the studywith the best results, 25% of eyes fail to refract towithin 0.5 D of the intended spherical equivalenttarget postoperatively.The one important variable that cannot bemeasured in advance is the ﬁnal axial restingposition of the IOL optic—the so called, effec-tive lens position (ELP). Calculating a surgeon’spersonalized A-constant is an effort to optimizethe ELP prediction based on variables in indi-vidual surgical techniques. In addition to capsu-lar bag ﬁxation of the IOL, the primary surgicalvariable that affects ELP is the diameter andshape of the capsulorhexis [59–61]. The gener-ally accepted surgical objective is a round capsu-lorhexis that overlaps the optic edge for all 360°of its circumference. This means that as the cap-sular bag shrinks and contracts postoperatively,the capsular forces are uniformly and symmetri-cally balanced in all three dimensions. A largerdiameter capsulorhexis that is all or partially“off ” the optic edge should permit the optic tomove slightly anterior to the position of one con-strained by a completely overlapping anteriorcapsular rim.Accommodating IOL designs may imposeadditional requirements for capsulorhexis diame-ter and shape. The ELP of a hinged optic, such aswith the Crystalens, would be expected to varywith the capsulorhexis diameter. If one assumes apreferred diameter of 5.0 mm, a smaller diametercapsulorhexis will contract more and may dis-place the optic more posteriorly. In contrast, alarger diameter capsulorhexis should allow theoptic to shift more anteriorly. Studies will beneeded to determine whether a FS laser capsulo-tomy is able to improve refractive outcomes onthe basis of greater ELP predictability. Finally,there is one special complication that is unique topremium refractive IOLs—that of a patient receiv-ing a well-positioned monofocal IOL, but not thetoric, multifocal, or accommodating IOL thatthey strongly preferred. For example, with thesynchrony dual optic accommodating IOL, theTable 2.4 Hitting emmetropia [54–59]Author N Biometry % Within 0.50 D % Within 1.00 DLanders (2009) 55 IOLMaster 75 93Immersion U/S 49 85Kim (2009) 30 Contact U/S 70 93Lim (2009) 100 Contact U/S 45 83Gale (2009) – IOLMaster – 80–87Eleftheriadis (2003) 100 IOLMaster – 96Murphy (2002) 1,676 Contact U/S 45 72Mean 57 87169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238t4.1t4.2t4.3t4.4t4.5t4.6t4.7t4.8t4.9t4.10
132 Current Outcomes with Cataract Surgery: Can We Do Better?anterior optic shifts forward with accommodativeeffort . If the capsulorhexis does not completelyoverlap the anterior optic edge, the 5.0 mm diam-eter anterior optic may partially dislocate out ofthe bag and into the ciliary sulcus. A capsulor-hexis that is too large or eccentric in shape istherefore a contraindication to implanting the syn-chrony accommodating IOL. A torn capsulorhexisis also a contraindication to using the Crystalens,in my opinion, because of the signiﬁcant potentialfor subluxation. A radial capsulorhexis tear alsoincreases the potential for single and three-pieceIOL decentration, and may be problematic for amultifocal or toric IOL where proper opticalalignment is more critical. Although they mightattain excellent corrected visual acuity with anintracapsular monofocal IOL, these aforemen-tioned patients are often emotionally distraught athaving permanently lost the opportunity to receivethe premium refractive IOL that they had selectedpreoperatively.Astigmatism ManagementThe number of cataract surgical patients withpreoperative corneal astigmatism has beendetermined from several studies. A publishedstudy of more than 23,000 eyes found that 8% ofpatients had at least 2.0 D of corneal astigma-tism preoperatively . The percent of eyeswith at least 1.0 and 0.5 D of preoperative cor-neal astigmatism were 36 and 74% respectively.This correlated well with a study of more than4,500 eyes in which 35% of eyes had at least1.0 D, and 22% had at least 1.5 D of preopera-tive corneal astigmatism .Incisional astigmatic keratotomy (AK) is apopular method of simultaneously reducing pre-operative corneal astigmatism at the time of cata-ract surgery . There is a relative dearth ofpublished studies on the efﬁcacy of this methodin conjunction with phaco. Carvalho and coau-thors found a statistically signiﬁcant reduction inmean topographic astigmatism from 1.93 ± 0.58 Dpreoperatively to 1.02 ± 0.60 D postoperativelyusing limbal relaxing incisions in 25 eyes .Mingo-Botín and coauthors compared toric IOLsto incisional astigmatic keratotomy in 40 eyesundergoing cataract surgery who were random-ized to either technique of astigmatism reduction. The mean reduction in keratometric astig-matism was 0.58 D (30% of the preoperative cor-neal astigmatism) in the 20 eyes receiving AK,and there was with a statistically signiﬁcantreduction in mean pre-op refractive astigmatism(pre-op −2.17 ± 1.02; post-op −1.32 ± 0.60;p = 0.001). However, the residual refractive astig-matism was £1.0 D in only 8/20 eyes (40%)receiving AK, compared to 18/20 eyes (90%)receiving a toric IOL. Poll and coauthors achieveda mean 0.46 D of postoperative astigmatism withastigmatic keratotomy in 115 eyes undergoingcataract surgery, which was comparable to toricIOL results in their series .The largest reported series of eyes undergoingastigmatic keratotomy combined with phaco isfrom Gills, and is shown in Fig. 2.3 . He ana-lyzed 358 eyes with mild to moderate preopera-tive astigmatism, of which 74% had more than1.0 D of astigmatism. The mean preoperativeastigmatism of 1.59 D was reduced to a mean of0.99 D postoperatively. Sixty-ﬁve percent ofthese treated eyes had <1 D of keratometric cyl-inder postoperatively and only 23% had <0.5 Dof astigmatism postoperatively.In the 2010 Leaming survey, 67% of respon-dents most often use a toric IOL and 18% ofrespondents most often use astigmatic kerato-tomy to treat pre-existing astigmatism in their7060502004010309080100PercentPre-opPost-op< 0.5 < 1 < 1.5 < 2Distribution of K Cylinder23%26%65%59%83%75%92%0%65% < 1 D23% < 0.5 D75% < 1 Dn = 358Fig. 2.3 Gills LRI data. n = 358, Mean pre-op cyl 1.59 D(mild-moderate astigmatism) 239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315
14 D.F. Changcataract patients . Astigmatic keratotomywill always be plagued by an unavoidable vari-able—that of the individual tissue response to thecorneal relaxing incision. Nevertheless, it standsto reason that AK results will be more accurate ifthe depth, curvature, length, diameter and axialorientation of the incisions (upon which thenomograms are developed and based) are madeas reproducibly consistent as possible. It will beof great interest to see if FS laser astigmatic kera-totomy will fulﬁll this potential.Key Points 1. The most recent published cataract surgicalstudies estimate the rate of vitreous loss to be2–4%. 2. Thirty-ﬁve percent of cataract patients have atleast 1 D of corneal astigmatism.References 1. Taban M, Behrens A, Newcomb RL, et al. Acuteendophthalmitis following cataract surgery: a system-atic review of the literature. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123:613–20. 2. Cooper BA, Holekamp NM, Bohigian G, Thompson PA.Case–control study of endophthalmitis after cataract sur-gery comparing scleral tunnel and clear corneal wounds.Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136: 300–5. 3. Lertsumitkul S, Myers PC, O’Rourke MT, Chandra J.Endophthalmitis in the western Sydney region: a case–control study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2001;29: 400–5. 4. Wallin T, Parker J, Jin Y, et al. Cohort study of 27cases of endophthalmitis at a single institution. JCataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:735–41. 5. Nichamin LD, Chang DF, Johnson SH, et al. AmericanSociety of Cataract and Refractive Surgery CataractClinical Committee. ASCRS White Paper: what is theassociation between clear corneal cataract incisionsand postoperative endophthalmitis? J Cataract RefractSurg. 2006;32:1556–9. 6. Bohórquez V, Alarcon R. Long-term reading perfor-mance in patients with bilateral dual-optic accommo-dating intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg.2010;36:1880–6. 7. Colvard DM, Dunn SA. Intraocular lens centrationwith continuous tear capsulotomy. J Cataract RefractSurg. 1990;16:312–4. 8. Ram J, Apple DJ, Peng Q, et al. Update on ﬁxationof rigid and foldable posterior chamber intraocularlenses. Part I: Elimination of ﬁxation-induced decen-tration to achieve precise optical correction andvisual rehabilitation. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:883–90. 9. Ram J, Pandey SK, Apple DJ, et al. Effect of in-the-bag intraocular lens ﬁxation on the prevention ofposterior capsule opaciﬁcation. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2001;27:367–70. 10. Nishi O, Nishi K, Wickstrom K. Preventing lens epi-thelial cell migration using intraocular lenses withsharp rectangular edges. J Cataract Refract Surg.2000;26:1543–9. 11. Marques FF, Marques DM, Osher RH, Osher JM. Fateof anterior capsule tears during cataract surgery. JCataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1638–42. 12. Muhtaseb M, Kalhoro A, Ionides A. A system for pre-operative stratiﬁcation of cataract patients according torisk of intraoperative complications. Br J Ophthalmol.2004;88:1242–6. 13. Unal M, Yücel I, Sarici A, et al. Phacoemulsiﬁcationwith topical anesthesia: resident experience. J CataractRefract Surg. 2006;32:1361–5. 14. Olali CA, Ahmed S, Gupta M. Surgical outcome follow-ing breach rhexis. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2007;17:565–70. 15. Dooley IJ, O’Brien PD. Subjective difﬁculty of eachstage of phacoemulsiﬁcation cataract surgery per-formed by basic surgical trainees. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2006;32(4):604–8. 16. Desai P, Minassian DC, Reidy A. National cataract sur-gery survey1997–98: a report of the results of the clini-cal outcomes. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1336–40. 17. Martin KR, Burton RL. The phacoemulsiﬁcationlearning curve: per-operative complications in the ﬁrst3000 cases of an experienced surgeon. Eye. 2000;14(Pt 2):190–5. 18. Lundstrom M, Barry P, Leite E, et al. 1998 EuropeanCataract Outcome Study: report from the EuropeanCataract Outcome Study Group. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2001;27:1176–84. 19. Ionides A, Minassian D, Tuft S. Visual outcomefollowing posterior capsule rupture during cataractsurgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:222–4. 20. Gimbel HV, Sun R, Ferensowicz M, et al. Intraoperativemanagement of posterior capsule tears in phacoe-mulsiﬁcationandintraocularlensimplantation.Ophthal-mology. 2001;108:2186–9 [discussion 2190–2]. 21. Tan JHY, Karwatowski WSS. Phacoemulsiﬁcationcataract surgery and unplanned anterior vitrectomy: isit bad news? Eye. 2002;16:117–20. 22. Chan FM, Mathur R, Ku JJK, et al. Short-term outcomesin eyes with posterior capsule rupture during cataractsurgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:537–41. 23. Androudi S, Brazitikos PD, Papadopoulos NT, et al.Posterior capsule rupture and vitreous loss duringphacoemulsiﬁcation with or without the use of ananterior chamber maintainer. J Cataract Refract Surg.2004;30:449–52. 24. Hyams M, Mathalone N, Herskovitz M, et al.Intraoperative complications of phacoemulsiﬁcationin eyes with and without pseudoexfoliation. J CataractRefract Surg. 2005;31:1002–5.[AU2]316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423
152 Current Outcomes with Cataract Surgery: Can We Do Better? 25. Ang GS, Whyte IF. Effect and outcomes of posteriorcapsule rupture in a district general hospital setting. JCataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:623–7. 26. Zaidi FH, Corbett M, Burton BJL, Bloom PA. Raisingthe benchmark for the 21st century—the 1000 cata-ract operations audit and survey: outcomes, consul-tant-supervised training and sourcing NHS choice. BrJ Ophthalmol. 2007;91:731–6. 27. Mearza AA, Ramanathan S, Bidgood P, Horgan S.Visual outcome in cataract surgery complicated by vit-reous loss in a district general hospital. Int Ophthalmol.2009;29:157–60. 28. Agrawal V, Upadhyay J, Indian Cataract RiskStratiﬁcation Study Group. Validation of scoring systemfor preoperative stratiﬁcation of intra-operative risks ofcomplications during cataract surgery: Indian multi-centric study. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2009;57: 213–5. 29. Blomquist PH, Rugwani RM. Visual outcomes aftervitreous loss during cataract surgery performed byresidents. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:847–52. 30. Bhagat N, Nissirios N, Potdevin L, Chung J, Lama P,Zarbin MA, Fechtner R, Guo S, Chu D, Langer P.Complications in resident performed phacoe-mulsiﬁcation cataract surgery at New Jersey MedicalSchool. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007;91:1315–7. 31. Pot MC, Stilma JS. Low complication rate with cata-ract operations carried out by registrars in ophthalmol-ogy. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;8(152):563–8. 32. Rutar T, Porco TC, Naseri A. Risk factors forintraoperative complications in resident-performedphacoemul-siﬁcation surgery. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:431–6. 33. Lee J-S, Hou C-H, Yang M-L, Kuo JZ-C, Lin K-K. Adifferent approach to assess resident phacoe-mulsiﬁcation learning curve: analysis of both comple-tion and complication rates. Eye. 2009;23:683–7. 34. Carricondo PC, Fortes AC, Mourao Pde C, Hajnal M,Jose NK. Senior resident phacoemulsiﬁcation learn-ing curve (corrected from cure). Arq Bras Oftalmol.2010;73:66–9. 35. Blomquist PH, Sargent JW, Winslow HH. Validationof Najjar-Awwad cataract surgery risk score for resi-dent phacoemulsiﬁcation surgery. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2010;36:1753–7. 36. Narendran N, Jaycock P, Johnston RL, et al. The CataractNational Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55,567operations: risk stratiﬁcation for posterior capsule rup-ture and vitreous loss. Eye (Lond). 2009;23 (1):31–7. 37. Greenberg PB, Tseng VL, Wu WC, et al. Prevalenceand predictors of ocular complications associatedwith cataract surgery in United States Veterans.Ophthalmology 2010 [Epub ahead of print]. 38. DeBry P, Olson RJ, Crandall AS. Comparison ofenergy required for phaco-chop and divide and con-quer phacoemulsiﬁcation. J Cataract Refract Surg.1998;24:689–92. 39. Pirazzoli G, D’Eliseo D, Ziosi M, Acciarri R. Effectsof phacoemulsiﬁcation time on the corneal endothe-lium using phacofracture and phaco chop techniques.J Cataract Refract Surg. 1996;22:967–9. 40. Ram J, Wesendahl TA, Auffarth GU, Apple DJ.Evaluation of in situ fracture versus phaco chop tech-niques. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:1464–8. 41. Wong T, Hingorani M, Lee V. Phacoemulsiﬁcationtime and power requirements in phaco chop and divideand conquer nucleofractis techniques. J CataractRefract Surg. 2000;26:1374–8. 42. Vajpayee RB, Kumar A, Dada T, Titiyal JS, SharmaN, Dada VK. Phaco-chop versus stop-and-chop nucle-otomy for phacoemulsiﬁcation. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2000;26(11):1638–41. 43. Storr-Paulsen A, Norregaard JC, Ahmed S, Storr-Paulsen T, Pedersen TH. Endothelial cell damageafter cataract surgery: divide-and-conquer versusphaco-chop technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:996–1000. 44. Park JH, Lee SM, Kwon JW, et al. Ultrasound energyin phacoemulsiﬁcation: a comparative analysis ofphaco-chop and stop-and-chop techniques accordingto the degree of nuclear density. Ophthalmic SurgLasers Imaging. 2010;41:236–41. 45. Pereira AC, Porﬁrio F, Freitas LL, Belfort R.Ultrasound energy and endothelial cell loss with stop-and-chop and nuclear preslice phacoemulsiﬁcation. JCataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:1661–6. 46. 2010 Leaming Survey. Accessed at http://www.ana-leyz.com/AnaleyzASCRS2010.htm 47. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparisonof immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coher-ence interferometry for intraocular lens calculationaccording to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin ExpOphthalmol. 2000;238:765–73. 48. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, et al. ImmersionA-scan compared with partial coherence interferome-try: outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:239–42. 49. Landers J, Goggin M. Comparison of refractive out-comes using immersion ultrasound biometry andIOLMaster biometry. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:566–9. 50. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development ofthe SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculationformula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16:333–40. 51. Hoffer KJ. The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison oftheoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract RefractSurg. 1993;19:700–12 [Erratum: J Cataract RefractSurg 1994;20:677]. 52. Olsen T, Corydon L, Gimbel H. Intraocular lens powercalculation with an improved anterior chamber depthprediction algorithm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995;21:313–9. 53. Hoffer KJ. Clinical results using the Holladay 2intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract RefractSurg. 2000;26:1233–7. 54. Kim SW, Kim EK, Cho BJ, et al. Use of the pentacamtrue net corneal power for intraocular lens calculationin eyes after refractive corneal surgery. J Refract Surg.2009;25(3):285–9. 55. Lim LH, Lee SY, Ang CL. Factors affecting thepredictability of SRK II in patients with normal[AU3]424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543
16 D.F. Changaxial length undergoing phacoemulsiﬁcation sur-gery. Singapore Med J. 2009;50(2):120–5. 56. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, et al. Benchmarkstandards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataractsurgery. Eye. 2009;23(1):149–52. 57. Eleftheriadis H. IOLMaster biometry: refractiveresults of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol.2003;87(8):960–3. 58. Murphy C, Tufy SJ, Minassian DC. Refractive errorand visual outcome after cataract extraction. J CataractRefract Surg. 2002;28:62–6. 59. Cekic O, Batman C. The relationship between capsu-lorhexis size and anterior chamber depth relation.Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 1999;30:185–90. 60. Norby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens powercalculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:368–76. 61. Hill WE. Intraocular lens power calculations: are westuck in the past? Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:761–2. 62. Hoffmann PC, Hutz WW. Analysis of biometry andprevalence data for corneal astigmatism in 23,239eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1479–85. 63. Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R, Peixoto-de-MatosSC, González-Méijome JM, Cerviño A. Prevalence ofcorneal astigmatism before cataract surgery. J CataractRefract Surg. 2009;35:70–5. 64. Amesbury EC, Miller KM. Correction of astigmatismat the time of cataract surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol.2009;20:19–24. 65. Carvalho MJ, Suzuki SH, Freitas LL, Branco BC, ShorP, Höfﬂing-Lima AL. Limbal relaxing incisions to cor-rect corneal astigmatism during phacoe-mulsiﬁcation.J Refract Surg. 2007;23:499–504. 66. Mingo-Botín D, Muñoz-Negrete FJ, Won Kim HR,Morcillo-Laiz R, Rebolleda G, Oblanca N.Comparison of toric intraocular lenses and peripheralcorneal relaxing incisions to treat astigmatism duringcataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1700–8. 67. Poll JT, Wang L, Koch DD, Weikert MP. Correction ofastigmatism during cataract surgery: toric intraocularlens compared to peripheral corneal relaxing inci-sions. J Refract Surg. 2011;27:165–71. 68. Gills JP, Wallace RB, Fine IH, et al. Chapter 7:Reducing pre-existing astigmatism with limbal relax-ing incisions. In: Henderson BA, Gills JP, editors.A complete surgical guide for correcting astigmatism.2nd ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack; 2011.544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591
Author QueriesChapter No.: 2 0001610159Queries Details Required Author’s ResponseAU1 Please check the caption of all tables.AU2 Please note that “Take Home Points” has been changed to “Key Points” throughout thebook to maintain consistency.AU3 As Refs. [49, 54] were identical the latter reference has been deleted and the subsequentreferences have been renumbered sequentially. Please check.