Online Course Standard Analysis of Outcomes in Anterior Segment Surgery
Software and Tools Included
With the course we provide you with the "Refractive Analysis" which is an easy to use software that has been built on basis of the Refractive Analysis Toolbox used in scientific studies in order to conduct common operations related to Anterior Segment Surgery or graphical representations according to the standards of peer review journals. Publications that have used the Refractive Analysis Toolbox have been classified by the Journal of Refractive Surgery as great examples of analysis.
Standards Evolution
Standardization in refractive and cataract surgery reporting began in the early 90s, marking a shift from an era of no formalized standards. A series of charts was proposed to streamline the representation of surgical results. However, the initial proposals were not widely accepted until the late 90s. By 2000, a set of six standardized charts was established, promoting easier adoption by authors, clearer requirements by editors, and better understanding by readers. By 2009, the adoption of these standardized charts became mandatory in most research journals, prompting enhancements to improve precision and accuracy. In 2011, the standards were globally adopted and further extended to include specific terminologies. The evolution continued with the introduction of astigmatism results reporting standards in 2014, and a shift from single to double-angle charts in 2018 for better representation of astigmatism analysis. In 2017, separate standards for cataract surgery reporting were introduced, including specific guidelines for studies involving intraocular lens calculation formulas. These standards received further updates in 2021 and 2022 to cater for advancements in lens technology. The ongoing evolution underpins a commitment to improving clarity, accuracy, and comprehension in refractive and cataract surgery reporting.
Course Modality
The course will be conducted asynchronously with on-demand access, that is, you will be able to follow it, whenever and however you want or your time allows.
Suscription Fee
You will be able to access all course contents immediately through a subscription that will give you access to the contents and updates for 1 year.
Course Duration
On the anticipated launch date the course will be launched with approximately 2 hours of content in the form of rapid learning video tutorials.
Contents
This course has been developed based on the most current scientific publications related to standards of analysis in anterior segment surgery.
Fernández J, Ribeiro FJ, Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Dupps WJ, Werner L, Srinivasan S, et al. Standard for collecting and reporting outcomes of IOL-based refractive surgery: update for enhanced monofocal, EDOF, and multifocal IOLs. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2022; 48(11): 1235–1241.
Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Srinivasan S, Mamalis N, Kohnen T, Dupps WJ, et al. Standard for reporting refractive outcomes of intraocular lens–based refractive surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 2017; 33(4): 218–222.
Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Srinivasan S, Mamalis N, Kohnen T, Dupps WJ, et al. Standard for reporting refractive outcomes of intraocular lens–based refractive surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 2017; 33(4): 218–222.
Dupps WJ, Kohnen T, Mamalis N, Rosen ES, Koch DD, Obstbaum SA, et al. Standardized graphs and terms for refractive surgery results. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2011; 37(1): 1–3.
Waring GO, Reinstein DZ, Dupps WJ, Kohnen T, Mamalis N, Rosen ES, et al. Standardized graphs and terms for refractive surgery results. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27(1): 7–9.
Reinstein DZ, Waring GO. Graphic reporting of outcomes of refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2009; 25(November): 975–978.
Waring 3rd GO. Standard graphs for reporting refractive surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 2000; 16(6): 757–8.
Koch DD, Kohnen T, Obstbaum SA, Rosen ES. Format for reporting refractive surgical data. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 1998; 24(3): 285–287.
Næser K. Surgically induced astigmatism made easy: calculating the surgically induced change in sphere and cylinder for corneal incisional, corneal laser, and intraocular lens–based surgery. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2021; 47(1): 118–122.
Koch DD, Wang L, Abulafia A, Holladay JT, Hill W. Rethinking the optimal methods for vector analysis of astigmatism. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2021; 47(1): 100–105.
Kohnen T, Marchini G, Alfonso JF, Bala C, Cochener B, Martinez A, et al. Innovative trifocal (quadrifocal) presbyopia-correcting IOLs: 1-year outcomes from an international multicenter study. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2020; 46(8): 1142–1148.
Holladay JT. Calculation of total surgically induced astigmatism with a toric intraocular lens. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2020; 46(5): 793–794.
Næser K. Astigmatism terminology for corneal and intraocular lens–based surgery. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2019; 45(2): 254–255.
Abulafia A, Koch DD, Holladay JT, Wang L, Hill W. Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: IV. Rethinking astigmatism analysis for intraocular lens-based surgery: Suggested terminology, analysis, and standards for outcome reports. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2018; 44(10): 1169–1174.4.
Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C. Consistency analysis of surgically induced astigmatism. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2017; 43(8): 1117–1118.
Alpins N. Astigmatism terminology and source references. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2016; 42(4): 643.
Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ. Surgically induced astigmatism: distinguishing between dioptric vectors and non-vectors. J. Refract. Surg. 2015; 31(5): 350–2.
Reinstein DZ, Archer TJ, Randleman JB. JRS Standard for Reporting Astigmatism Outcomes of Refractive Surgery. J. Refract. Surg. 2014; 30(10): 654–659.9.
Alpins N, Ong JKY, Stamatelatos G. Refractive surprise after toric intraocular lens implantation: Graph analysis. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2014; 40(2): 283–294.
Alpins N. Vector analysis with the femtosecond laser. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2014; 40(7): 1246–1247.
Næser K. Assessment and statistics of surgically induced astigmatism. Acta Ophthalmol. 2008; 86(3): 349.
Eydelman MB, Drum B, Holladay J, Hilmantel G, Kezirian G, Durrie D, et al. Standardized analyses of correction of astigmatism by laser systems that reshape the cornea. J. Refract. Surg. 2006; 22(1): 81–95.14.
Alpins N. Astigmatism analysis by the Alpins method. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2001; 27(1): 31–49.15.
Alpins NA. A new method of analyzing vectors for changes in astigmatism. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 1993; 19(4): 524–33.
Holladay JT, Wilcox RR, Koch DD, Wang L. Review and recommendations for univariate statistical analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error for IOL power calculations. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2021; 47(1): 65–77.2.
Hoffer KJ, Savini G. Update on Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Study Protocols. Ophthalmology. 2020.
Abulafia A, Koch DD, Holladay JT, Wang L, Hill W. Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: IV. Rethinking astigmatism analysis for intraocular lens-based surgery: Suggested terminology, analysis, and standards for outcome reports. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2018; 44(10): 1169–1174.
Hill WE, Abulafia A, Wang L, Koch DD. Pursuing perfection in IOL calculations. II. Measurement foibles: Measurement errors, validation criteria, IOL constants, and lane length. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2017; 43(7): 869–870.
Koch DD, Hill W, Abulafia A, Wang L. Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: I. Logical approach for classifying IOL calculation formulas. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2017; 43(6): 717–718.
Wang L, Koch DD, Hill W, Abulafia A. Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III. Criteria for analyzing outcomes. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2017; 43(8): 999–1002.
Hoffer KJ, Aramberri J, Haigis W, Olsen T, Savini G, Shammas HJ, et al. Protocols for Studies of Intraocular Lens Formula Accuracy. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2015; 160(3): 403–405.e1.
