You are on page 1of 17

Observation and Result

OBSERVATION AND RESULT

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

followed up postoperatively at day1, 1week, 1 month and 3 months.

Age Distribution:

Table 1: Age Distribution of the Patients Included in Study

Age Groups Frequency %

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%

Mean SD 58.27 8.15

Median 58.00

Min Max 43 78

48
Observation and Result

Figure 3: Age Distribution of the Patients Included in Study

Age Groups distribution

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

Total number of patient were 51

Mean age of the patient is 58.27 8.15 years.

The oldest patient was 78 years old and the youngest 43 years old.

Maximum numbers of patients were in the age group of 51-60 years.

49
Observation and Result

Sex Distribution:

Table 2: Sex Distribution of the Patients

Sex Frequency %

F 29 56.9%

M 22 43.1%

Total 51 100%

Figure 4: Sex Distribution of the Patients

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

Table 3: Frequency of operated eye

Operated Eye Frequency %

Left 22 43.1%

Right 29 56.9%

Total 51 100%

Figure 5: Frequency of operated eye

Distribuion of Operated Eye


Left

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

Table 4: Pre-operative visual acuity in the study group

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%

Figure 6: Pre-operative visual acuity in the study group

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%)

patient had visual acuity of 6/36, CF 4 and CF 6.

52
Observation and Result

Table 5: Pre-operative Best corrected visual acuity in the study group

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%

Figure 7: Pre-operative Best corrected visual acuity in the study group

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

had BCVA of 4/60, 6/24 and CF 6.

53
Observation and Result

Table 6: Intraocular pressure in the study group

IOP (mmHg) Frequency %


12 9 17.6%
14 18 35.3%
16 16 31.4%
20 8 15.7%
Total 51 100%
Mean SD 15.22 2.50
Median 14.00
Min - Max 12 20

Figure 8: Intraocular pressure in the study group

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

Pre-operative mean IOP was 15.22 2.50.

Majority of the patient having IOP of 14 mmHg (35.3%). IOP of the patient fall in

range of 12 mmHg 20 mmHg.

54
Observation and Result

Table 7: Slit lamp grading of cataract (LOCS III)

SL Frequency %

NS II 21 41.2%

NS III 29 56.9%

NS IV 1 2.0%

Total 51 100%

Figure 9: Slit lamp grading of cataract (LOCS III)

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.

Table 8: Fundus findings in the study group

Fundus Frequency %

WNL 51 100.0%

Total 51 100%

Fundus of all the patient was within normal limit.


55
Observation and Result

Table 9: Mean Keratometric reading, Axial Length and AC depth in study


group.

Mean SD Median Min Max


K1 7.68 0.33 7.67 7.01 - 8.50
K2 7.61 0.23 7.60 7.00 - 8.23
AL 26.96 1.32 26.86 25.06 - 31.19
AC depth 2.52 0.21 2.48 2.11 - 3.14

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

Mean SD Median Min Max

IOL power by SRK-T 9.87 4.26 10.00 (-)3.0 - 17.05

IOL power by Hoffer-Q 8.94 4.81 8.50 (-)4.5 - 17.06

IOL power by Haigis 9.24 4.68 9.00 (-)4.5 - 17.06

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

Mean SD Median Min Max

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

minimum range of (-)0.23 and maximum of 0.25.

The mean Formula predicted SE by Hoffer Q in study group was (-)0.00 0.86 with

min range of (-)0.15 and maximum of 0.15.

The mean Formula predicted SE by Haigis in study group (-)0.00 0.10 with min

range of (-)0.17 and maximum of 0.16.

58
Observation and Result

Table 12: Post-operative visual acuity

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%

Figure 13: Post-operative visual acuity

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

At postoperative 1 week, 33 (64.7%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/6, 13 (25.5%)

patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/18 and

1(2.0%) patient had a visual acuity of 6/36.

59
Observation and Result

At postoperative 1 month, 38(74.5%) of the patients had a visual acuity of 6/6, 8

(15.7%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of

6/18 and 1(2.0%) patient had a visual acuity of 6/36.

At postoperative 3 month, 38(74.5%) of the patients had a visual acuity of 6/6, 8

(15.7%) patients had a visual acuity of 6/9, 4 (7.8%) patients had a visual acuity of

6/18 and 1(2.0%) patient had a visual acuity of 6/36.

60
Observation and Result

Table 13: The mean Difference between Actual postoperative SE and formula
predicted SE

Mean SD Median Min Max


Actual Postoperative SE (-)0.25 0.43 (-)0.18 (-)2.5 - 0.4
Difference Between Formula
Predicted SE And Actual (-)0.25 0.45 (-)0.24 (-)0.46 - 2.37
Postop SE (SRK-T)
Difference Between Formula
Predicted SE And Actual Po- (-)0.64 0.64 (-)0.61 (-)2.67 - 1.01
op SE (Hoffer Q)
Difference Between Formula
Predicted SE And Actual Post (-)0.41 0.74 (-)0.36 (-)2.67 - 1.42
Of SE (Haigis)

Figure 14:The mean Difference between Actual postoperative SE and formula


predicted SE

the mean of difference between formula predicted SE and the actual


post operative SE
0
Actual Post Op SE Diffence Between Difference Between Difference Between
-0.1 Formula Predicted SE Formula Predicted SE Formula Predicted SE
And Actual Postop SE And Actual Po Op SE And Actuall Post Of
-0.2 (SRK-T) (Hoffer Q) SE (Haigis)
Mean Values

-0.3 -0.25 -0.25

-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

SE by using SRK-T formula is (-)0.25 0.43 D.

The mean 2SD of the difference between the formula predicted SE and the actual

SE by using Hoffer Q formula is (-).64 0.64 D.

The mean 2SD of the difference between the formula predicted SE and the actual

SE by using Haigis formula is (-)0.41 0.74 D.

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)

Figure 15: Pearson correlation of Difference between formula predicted SE and


actual postop SE (SRK-T)

62
Observation and Result

Figure 16: Pearson correlation of Difference between formula predicted SE and

actual postop SE (Hoffer-Q)

Figure 17: Pearson correlation of Difference between formula predicted SE and

actual postop SE (Hoffer-Q)


Difference between formula predicted SE and actual Po-Op
of refractive error (Haigis)

63
Observation and Result

The Pearson correlation was 0.203 for Hoffer-Q and 0.231 for Haigis thus there is no

relationship between this formulae in predicting postoperative SE.

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

considered statistically insignificant. The statistical significance of P value was

consider as 0.05.

64