Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Peyman A, Kabiri M, Peyman M
    Breast J, 2015 Sep-Oct;21(5):543-4.
    PMID: 26174775 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12451
    Here, we present a case of tonic pupil associated with occult breast cancer as a paraneoplastic neuro-ophthalmology syndrome. A 45-year-old woman developed progressive photophobia and blurred vision due to unilateral Adie's tonic pupil. Magnetic resonance image of her brain and neurological examination (including deep tendon reflexes) were normal at first visit. Follow-up examinations performed by ophthalmologist every 6 month without any change in her condition. After 2 years, patient discovered a mass in her breast which identified to be malignant after diagnostic procedures. Despite surgical and medical treatment for cancer, no change in the ocular condition was happened.
  2. Peyman A, Dastborhan Z, Peyman M
    J Curr Ophthalmol, 2017 Jun;29(2):98-102.
    PMID: 28626818 DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2016.12.001
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of non-keratometric ocular astigmatisms on visual and refractive outcomes after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for correction of myopic astigmatisms.

    METHODS: Seventy one eyes of 36 subjects were enrolled in this study. Patients underwent PRK for treatment of myopia. Subjects were evaluated for refractive error, keratometry, and visual acuity before and six months after surgery. Pre- and post-op non-keratometric astigmatisms were calculated by vectorial analysis of the difference between the corneal plane refractive astigmatism and keratometric astigmatism. Astigmatic analysis explored the contribution of non-keratometric astigmatisms.

    RESULTS: The pre-op spherical equivalent (SE) was -6.27 ± 1.48 with 1.16 ± 1.02 diopters of corneal plane refractive astigmatism and 1.44 ± 0.47 diopters keratometric astigmatism. Post-op values were -0.60 ± 0.85, 0.56 ± 0.47, and 1.06 ± 0.57, respectively, 6 months after surgery. Pre- and post-op non-keratometric astigmatisms were 0.76 ± 0.41 and 0.76 ± 0.46, respectively, (P = 0.976) with significant correlation (r = 0.37, P = 0.002). Pre-op non-keratometric astigmatisms correlated to the pre-op SE (r = -0.25, P = 0.04). Pre-op non-keratometric astigmatisms had significant correlation with keratometric difference vector of astigmatic correction (r = 0.369, P = 0.002). Post-op non-keratometric astigmatisms correlated to keratometric induced astigmatism (r = 0.334, P = 0.006), keratometric index of success (r = 0.571, P 

  3. Ghoreyshi M, Khalilian A, Peyman M, Mohammadinia M, Peyman A
    J Curr Ophthalmol, 2018 Mar;30(1):63-67.
    PMID: 29564411 DOI: 10.1016/j.joco.2017.06.008
    Purpose: To compare the performance of OKULIX ray-tracing software with SRK-T and Hoffer Q formula in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients presenting with cataract.

    Methods: In this prospective study, 104 eyes of 104 patients with cataract who underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were recruited. Three IOL brands were used and for all eyes, IOL power calculation was performed using SRK-T, Hoffer Q formula and also OKULIX ray-tracing software. For all patients, axial length and keratometry data was obtained with IOLMaster 500 device and IOL power was determined using Hoffer Q and SRK-T formula. The IOL powers were also calculated using the OKULIX ray-tracing software combined with CASIA AS-OCT and IOLMaster 500 device. Optically measured axial length of eyes were inserted to OKULIX software from IOLMaster 500 device, and anterior and posterior tomographic and corneal pachymetry data was imported from CASIA AS-OCT into the OKULIX.The performance of each calculation methods was measured by subtracting the predicted postoperative refraction from the postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE). For each of the 3 methods, the mean absolute prediction error was determined, too.

    Results: The mean value absolute prediction error by OKULIX, SRK-T and Hoffer Q formulas, respectively, were 0.42 (±0.03), 0.36 (±0.02) and 0.37 (±0.02). The mean absolute prediction error by OKULIX had no significant difference between three IOL groups (P = 0.96), and it was confirmed that there was no meaningful statistically difference in mean absolute prediction error between the OKULIX, SRK-T and Hoffer Q formula. (P = 0.25). Also in each group of implanted IOLs, all three formulas worked with the same accuracy. The prediction error using OKULIX were within ±0.50 diopter in 63.5% of eyes and within ±1.00 diopter in 94.2% of eyes.

    Conclusion: OKULIX ray-tracing IOL power measurements provides reliable and satisfactory postoperative results, which are comparable to other 3rd generation formulas of SRK-T and Hoffer Q.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links