Cataract Surgical Planning Using Online Software vs Traditional Methods: A Time/Motion and Quality of Care Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Patient Characteristics and Procedures Performed

	Total
N	40
Age	69.3 ± 13.3 (range 53–85)
Females	21 (52%)
Right Eyes	23 (58%)
Post Refractive	9 (22.5%)
Required Astigmatic Planning	20 (50%)

Figure 1 The mean surgical planning time was significantly reduced for post refractive (P < 0.00001), non post-refractive (P < 0.00001), and combined patients (P < 0.00001).

Figure 2 The mean manual transcription of data points was significantly reduced for post refractive (P < 0.00004), non post-refractive (P < 0.0000001), and combined patients (P < 0.0000001).

Table 2 Implications for Preventing Errors

	Post-Refractive		Non Post-Refractive
	Traditional	Veracity	Traditional	Veracity
Error rate in transcribed data	3.5%	3.5%	3.5%	3.5%
Data points transcribed	19	1.3	3.5	0.8
Likelihood of error	2 in 3 eyes	1 in 22 eyes	1 in 8 eyes	1 in 36 eyes

Figure 3 Per eye estimated likelihood of error in post-refractive patients using traditional methods was 2 in 3 eyes vs 1 in 22 eyes for the online software. Likelihood of error for non-post refractive patients using traditional methods was 1 in 8 eyes vs 1 in 36 eyes for the online software.

Figure 4 Refractive accuracy was roughly equivalent in both study arms, thus no significant differences were noted in mean absolute prediction error for traditional methods and online software.

Figure 5 Intended postoperative manifest spherical equivalent refraction was found within 0.5D predicted value for all enrolled patients, thus no significant differences were noted between traditional methods and online software.