Background This study evaluates the impact of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 newer intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in cataract surgery. The aim is to assess how these formulas perform across different corneal curvature ranges, thereby guiding more precise IOL selection. Methods In this retrospective case series, 336 eyes from 336 patients who underwent cataract surgery were studied. The cohort was divided into three groups according to preoperative corneal power. Key metrics analyzed included mean prediction error (PE), standard deviation of PE (SD), mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.25 D, 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D and ± 2.00 D. Results In the flat K group (Km < 43 D), VRF-G, Emmetropia Verifying Optical Version 2.0 (EVO2.0), Kane, and Hoffer QST demonstrated lower SDs (± 0.373D, ± 0.379D, ± 0.380D, ± 0.418D, respectively) compared to the VRF formula (all P < 0.05). EVO2.0 and K6 showed significantly different SDs compared to Barrett Universal II (BUII) (all P < 0.02). In the medium K group (43 D ≤ Km < 46 D), VRF-G, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS recorded lower MAEs (0.307D to 0.320D) than Olsen (OLCR) and Castrop (all P < 0.03), with RBF3.0 having the second lowest MAE (0.309D), significantly lower than VRF and Olsen (OLCR) (all P < 0.05). In the steep K group (Km ≥ 46D), RBF3.0, K6, and Kane achieved significantly lower MAEs (0.279D, 0.290D, 0.291D, respectively) than Castrop (all P < 0.001). Conclusions The study highlights the varying accuracy of newer IOL formulas based on corneal power. VRF-G, EVO2.0, Kane, K6, and Hoffer QST are highly accurate for flat corneas, while VRF-G, RBF3.0, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS are recommended for medium K corneas. In steep corneas, RBF3.0, K6, and Kane show superior performance.

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile (C. difficile ) infection (CDI) is a rare clinical disease caused by changes in the intestinal microenvironment, which has a variety of causes and a poor prognosis, and for which there is no standardized clinical treatment. CASE SUMMARY A patient experienced recurrent difficulty in bowel movements over the past decade. Recently, symptoms worsened within the last ten days, leading to a clinic visit due to constipation. The patient was subsequently referred to our department. Preoperatively, the patient was diagnosed with obstructed colon accompanied by gallstones. Empirical antibiotics were administered both before and after surgery to prevent infection. On the fourth day post-surgery, symptoms of CDI emerged. Stool cultures confirmed the presence of C. difficile DNA. Treatment involved a combination of vancomycin and linezolid, resulting in the patient's successful recovery upon discharge. However, the patient failed to adhere to the prescribed medication after discharge and was discovered deceased during a follow-up two months later. CONCLUSION CDI is the leading cause of nosocomial post-operative care, with limited clinical cases and poor patient prognosis, and comprehensive clinical treatment guidelines are still lacking. This infection can be triggered by a variety of factors, including intestinal hypoxia, inappropriate antibiotic use, and bile acid circulation disorders. In patients with chronic bowel disease and related etiologies, prompt preoperative attention to possible CDI and preoperative bowel preparation is critical. Adequate and prolonged medication should be maintained in the treatment of CDI to prevent recurrence of the disease.

PURPOSE:To evaluate the predictive accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and axial length (AL) adjusted traditional IOL formulas, including Wang-Koch and Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) method, in long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, and to compare refractive prediction error variances with C-loop IOLs. DESIGN:Retrospective consecutive case series study. METHODS:Data from 391 eyes with Zeiss 509 M and 302 eyes with Alcon SN6CWS implants in highly myopic patients, following cataract surgery from January 2019 to November 2023, were collected. One eye per patient was selected. Predictive outcomes of 15 modern formulas (Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Karmona, Ladas AI, Naeser 2, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, T2, VRF-G, Zhu-Lu, and Z-Calc) and 4 traditional IOL formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) with AL adjusted methods, were evaluated. The mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and the proportions of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 Diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analyzed. Top 10 RMSAE-ranked formulas underwent further subgroup analysis based on AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry (K). RESULTS:For the 509 M group, RMSAE ranking for the top 10 IOL formulas were the RBF 3.0 (0.432), Zhu-Lu (0.436), Olsen (0.436), EVO 2.0 (0.437), Pearl-DGS (0.447), K6 (0.452), VRF-G (0.454), Naeser 2 (0.464), Haigis-CMAL (0.465) and Karmona (0.477). Karmona and Naeser 2 showed poorer performance in the extremely long AL and steep K subgroups, respectively (p ≤ 0.042). Haigis-CMAL accuracy was significantly lower in shallow ACD and flat K subgroups (P ≤ .045). The SN6CWS group showed significantly lower MAE and RMSAE compared to the 509 M group for the BU II, EVO 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Zhu-Lu formulas (P ≤ .024). CONCLUSIONS:In long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, RBF 3.0 performed best, closely followed by Zhu-Lu, Olsen, and EVO 2.0; Karmona and Naeser 2 are discouraged for extreme AL and steep K conditions, respectively; Haigis-CMAL is not suggested for shallow ACD and flat K cases. Refractive outcomes in eyes implanted with a C-loop design IOL were more accurate than for those implanted with a plate-haptic design, for most tested formulas.

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of different analgesic interventions in the treatment of pain after open hemorrhoidectomy by systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and VIP were searched from the date of database construction to June 28, 2022. Among the 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 731 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most interventions are more effective than placebo in relieving postoperative pain. 24 h postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (mean difference (MD) − 4.20, 95% CI − 5.35, − 3.05), diltiazem (MD − 1.97, 95% CI − 2.44, − 1.51), botulinum toxin (BT) (MD − 1.50, 95% CI − 2.25, − 0.75), sucralfate (MD − 1.01, 95% CI − 1.53, − 0.49), and electroacupuncture (EA) (MD − 0.45, 95% CI − 0.87, − 0.04). 48 h postoperative VAS: diltiazem (MD − 2.45, 95% CI − 2.74, − 2.15), BT (MD − 2.18, 95% CI − 2.52, − 1.84), and sucralfate (MD − 1.41, 95% CI − 1.85, − 0.97). 7 d postoperative VAS: diltiazem (MD − 2.49, 95% CI − 3.20, − 1.78) and sucralfate (MD − 1.42, 95% CI − 2.00, − 0.85). The first postoperative defecation VAS: EA (MD − 0.70, 95% CI − 0.95, − 0.46). There are few data on intervention safety, and additional high-quality RCTs are expected to study this topic in the future. Diltiazem ointment may be the most effective medication for pain relief following open hemorrhoidectomy, and it can dramatically reduce pain within one week of surgery. The second and third recommended medications are BT and sucralfate ointment. GTN has a significant advantage in alleviating pain 24 h after open hemorrhoidectomy, but whether it causes headache is debatable; thus, it should be used with caution. EA’s analgesic efficacy is still unknown. There was limited evidence on the safety of the intervention in this study, and it was simply presented statistically.

Although the cell atlas of the human ocular anterior segment of the human eye was revealed by single-nucleus RNA sequencing, whether subtypes of lens stem/progenitor cells exist among epithelial cells and the molecular characteristics of cell differentiation of the human lens remain unclear. Single-cell RNA sequencing is a powerful tool to analyse the heterogeneity of tissues at the single cell level, leading to a better understanding of the processes of cell differentiation. By profiling 18,596 cells in human lens superficial tissue through single-cell sequencing, we identified two subtypes of lens epithelial cells that specifically expressed C8orf4 and ADAMTSL4 with distinct spatial localization, a new type of fibre cells located directly adjacent to the epithelium, and a subpopulation of ADAMTSL4(+) cells that might be lens epithelial stem/progenitor cells. We also found two trajectories of lens epithelial cell differentiation and changes of some important genes during differentiation.

Purpose To systematically compare and rank ocular measurements with optical and ultrasound biometers based on big data. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the US trial registry ( www.ClinicalTrial.gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to October 22nd, 2020. We included comparative studies reporting the following parameters measured by at least two devices: axial length (AL), flattest meridian keratometry (Kf), steepest meridian keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism (AST), astigmatism vectors J 0 and J 45 , anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal diameter (CD) and lens thickness (LT). A network-based big data analysis was conducted using STATA version 13.1. Results Across 129 studies involving 17,181 eyes, 12 optical biometers and two ultrasound biometers (with both contact and immersion techniques) were identified. A network meta-analysis for AL and ACD measurements found that statistically significant differences existed when contact ultrasound biometry was compared with the optical biometers. There were no statistically significant differences among the four swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) based devices (IOLMaster 700, OA-2000, Argos and ANTERION). As for Ks, Km and CD, statistically significant differences were found when the Pentacam AXL was compared with the IOLMaster and IOLMaster 500. There were statistically significant differences for CCT when the OA-2000 was compared to Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700, Lenstar, AL-Scan and Galilei G6. Conclusion For AL and ACD, contact ultrasound biometry obtains the lower values compared with optical biometers. The Pentacam AXL achieves the lowest values for keratometry and CD. The smallest value for CCT measurement is found with the OA-2000.

PURPOSE:To evaluate the accuracy of newer online intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in extremely elongated eyes (axial length > 30 mm).METHODS:This retrospective case series study included 236 patients (236 eyes). Postoperative refractive outcomes of the Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer QST (HQST), Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in the extreme myopia group 1 (30 < axial length ≤ 32 mm), extreme myopia group 2 (32 < axial length ≤ 35 mm), and meniscus IOL group. The root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters (D) were calculated for statistical analysis.RESULTS:For the extreme myopia group 1, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest RMSAE (0.361) and EVO 2.0 showed the highest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (85.06%). For the extreme myopia group 2, the RMSAE of the K6 (0.442) and EVO 2.0 (0.475) was significantly lower than the BU II (0.610), Kane (0.641), and HQST (0.759, P ≤ .016) formulas. In the meniscus IOL group, the K6 formula showed the lowest RMSAE (0.402) and the highest percentage within ±0.50 diopters (84.31%).CONCLUSIONS:The EVO 2.0 and K6 formulas are recommended for IOL power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia. Modern artificial intelligence-based formulas should be used cautiously when the axial length is longer than 32 mm or meniscus IOLs are implanted. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):705-710.].

PURPOSE:To investigate the effect of corneal curvature (K) on the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens formulas in highly myopic eyes. SETTING:Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. DESIGN:Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS:302 eyes (302 patients) were analyzed in subgroups based on the K value. The mean refractive error, mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.00 D were statistical analyzed. RESULTS:Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 had the lower MAE (≤0.28) and RMSAE (≤0.348) and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (≥83.58%) in the flat (K ≤ 43 D) and steep K (K > 45 D) groups. Hoffer QST had the lowest MedAE (0.19), RMSAE (0.351) and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (82.98%) in the normal K group (43 < K ≤ 45 D). When axial length (AL) ≤28 mm, all formulas showed close RMSAE values (0.322 to 0.373) in flat K group. When AL >28 mm, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest MAE (≤0.24), MedAE (≤0.17) and RMSAE (≤0.337) across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS:EVO 2.0, Kane, and RBF 3.0 were the most accurate in highly myopic eyes with a flat or steep K. Hoffer QST is recommended for long eyes with normal K values. RBF 3.0 showed the highest accuracy when AL >28 mm, independent of corneal curvature.

Background To compare the difference in central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements in normal eyes between a rotating Scheimpflug camera combined with a Placido-disk corneal topographer (Sirius, CSO, Italy) and ultrasound pachymetry (USP). Methods A systematic literature search was conducted for relevant studies published on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 1st, 2019. Primary outcome measures were CCT measurements between Sirius and USP. A random effects model was used to pool CCT measurements. Results A total of twelve studies involving 862 eyes were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found CCT measurements between Sirius and USP to be statistically significantly different ( P < 0.0001). The mean difference between Sirius and USP was −11.26 μm with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (−16.92 μm, −5.60 μm). The heterogeneity was I 2 = 60% ( P = 0.004). Conclusion CCT measurements with the Sirius Scheimpflug-Placido topographer were statistically significantly lower than USP. However, it may be argued that the mean difference of 11.26 μm is not a clinically significant difference.

PURPOSE: To systematically compare and rank the predictability of no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic laser refractive surgery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry ( www.ClinicalTrial.gov ) were used to systematically search trials published up to August 2019. Included were case series studies reporting the following outcomes in patients with cataract undergoing phacoemulsification after laser refractive surgery: percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE). A network meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA software version 13.1 (STATACorp LLC). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving 1,098 eyes and 19 formulas were identified. A network meta-analysis for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D found that ray-tracing (Okulix), intraoperative aberrometry (Optiwave Refractive Analysis [ORA]), BESSt, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) (D-K SRK/T), and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas were more predictive than the Wang/Koch/Maloney, Shammas-PL, modified Rosa, Ferrara, and Equivalent K reading at 4.5 mm using the Double-K Holladay 1 formulas. With regard to ranking, the top four formulas as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D were the Okulix, ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). With regard to MAE, the ORA showed lower errors when compared to the Shammas-PL formula. In this regard, the top four formulas based on the SUCRA values were the Triple-S, BESSt, ORA, and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas. The SToP (SRK/T), ORA, Fourier-Domain OCT-Based, and BESSt formulas had the lowest MedAE. CONCLUSIONS: Considering all three outcome measures of highest percentages of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D, lowest MAE, and lowest MedAE, the top three no-history formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic corneal laser refractive surgery were: ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). [ J Refract Surg . 2020;36(7):481–490.]