





























Volume-1
Issue-1

Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

1



Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

Volume-1
Issue-1

2

ART of MEDICINE

 International Medical Scientific Journal

Volume 1, Issue 1, May   2021



Volume-1
Issue-1

Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

3

Founder and Publisher Pascual Izquierdo-Egea
Published science may 2021 year. Issued Quarterly.
Internet address: http://artofmedicineimsj.us
E-mail: info@artofmedicineimsj.us
11931 Barlow Pl  Philadelphia, PA 19116, USA +1 (929) 266-0862

Art of Medicine
 International Medical Scientific journal

CHIEF EDITOR

Dr. Pascual Izquierdo-Egea

EDITORIAL BOARD

Prof. Dr. Francesco Albano

Dr. Catherine J. Andersen

Prof. Dr. Sandro Ardizzone

Dr. Dmitriy Atochin

Prof. Dr. Antonio Aversa

Prof. Dr. Tamam Bakchoul

Prof. Dr. Pierre-Gregoire Guinot

Prof. Dr. Rainer Haak

Prof. Henner Hanssen



Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

Volume-1
Issue-1

4

CONTENT

Tursunova L. D., Jabbarov O. O.
APPLICATION OF SAKABUTRIL/VALSARTAN IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC
KIDNEY DISEASE WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS...............................5

L.S. Khamraeva., D.U. Narzullaeva
FEATURES OF CALCULATING THE OPTICAL POWER OF AN
INTRAOCULAR LENS IN CHILDREN WITH CONGENITAL CATARACTS
AT THE RISK OF DEVELOPING PSEUDOMYOPIC MYOPIA.....................10

Kasimova M. S., Iminova M. M., Ashurov O. M.
OPHTHALMOLOGIC COMPLICATIONS IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE
CLINICAL FEATURES OF NOVEL CORONAVIRUS INFECTION
(COVID-19)......................................................................................................14

Fattayeva D.R., Rizayev J.A., Rakhimova D.A.
IMPROVEMENT OF METHODS FOR CORRECTION OF CLINICAL AND
IMMUNOLOGICAL DISORDERS IN COMORBID STATE OF CHRONIC
GAYMORITIS AFTER COVID-19....................................................................17

Polatova D.Sh., Abdukarimov Kh.G., Davletov R.R., Savkin A.V., Sultanov B.B
FEATURES OF IMMUNOBIOLOGICAL HETEROGENEITY IN PATIENTS
WITH OSTEOSARCOMA.................................................................................25



Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

Volume-1
Issue-1

10

FEATURES OF CALCULATING THE OPTICAL POWER OF AN
INTRAOCULAR LENS IN CHILDREN WITH CONGENITAL CATARACTS AT
THE RISK OF DEVELOPING PSEUDOMYOPIC MYOPIA.

L.S. Khamraeva., D.U. Narzullaeva
Tashkent Pediatric Medical Institute of the Ministry of Health of the

Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent.

Abstract
The article presents the results of the clinical efficacy of the calculation formula with the

correction factor of the optical force of the intraocular lens in children with congenital
cataracts at risk of development of pseudophakic myopia.  Personalized Rm corrective
coefficient in the formula for calculating the force of IOL in children with risk of development
of pseudophakic myopia makes it possible to achieve target refraction in 83.3% cases and
reduce the development of reduce myopic refraction.
Keywords: congenital cataract, pseudophakic myopia, intraocular lens power calculation

Introduction. To date, congenital cataracts (CC) occupy a significant place in the
structure of blindness and weakness and are one of the main causes of disabilities in
vision from childhood [1-5].  The modern and optimal method of treating CC is its
extraction with an implantation of an intraocular lens (IOL).  There are a large number
of formulas for calculating the optical force of IOL to adult patients.  In pediatrics, the
formulas SRK II, SRK \ T, taking into account the sagittal size of the eyeball,
refracting the power of the cornea and the individual constants of the selected model of
IOL are used.  When calculating the optical force of implanable IOL, children of the
first year of life determine the magnitude of hypocorrection (from (+) 4.0 to (+14.0
d)) refraction, taking into account the refraction of the cornea, the difference in the
original and predicted axial length (AL) after the completion of the physiological
growth of the eye  [6-8].  However, it is not known which of the formulas used are more
predictable when calculating the strength of the lens in children with the risk of the
development of myopic refraction.  One of the most complex and important points
remains the calculation of target refraction with the continued growth of the eyes during
the formation of a child's visual analyzer with the risk of myopia after IOL implantation.

Purpose. Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of the recommended calculation of the
optical force of IOL in children with congenital cataracts at risk of the development of
pseudophakic myopia.

Material and methods.  Under our observation in the eye department of the clinic of
the Tashkent Pediatric Medical Institute, there were 24 (43 eyes) of the child with CC.
All patients underwent extracapsular CC extraction with implantation of soft IOLs at
the age of 1 to 5 years.  Children were distributed to 2 groups.  In I (basic), the group
includes 11 (21 eyes), in II - (control) 13 (22 eyes) of patients.  All children had a risk
of developing pseudophakic myopia.  The optical power of the IOL in the control group
was calculated according to the traditional SRK II formula with the age-related refractive
hypocorrection [9], in the main and also according to the SRK II formula with the age-
related refraction, but with the Rm correction factor recommended by us.

  The results of refractive indicators were studied in 3-12 months after surgery.



Volume-1
Issue-1

Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

11

Results and  discussion. 
The SRK II formula with an introduced correction factor has the form: 
P = [(A- 2.5 x L - 0.9 x K) - R] - Rm 

P - optical power of IOL (dptr) 
A - constant determined by the manufacturer of IOL 

L - axial length (mm), is measured by each child individually 
K - keratometry refractive power of the cornea (dptr), is measured by each child individually 

R - is an indicator of age residual refraction (dptr) 
Rm - correction factor  (dptr) is determined by the original own formula based on clinical 
studies. 
 The correction factor  (Rm) was determined by formula 1. 

The formula of a certain correction factor: R m = AL P x 0.82, where the AL is an indicator of 
the average physiological growth of the AL P of the child by the time the physiological growth of 
the eyeball (15 years) is preached on the basis of indicators of ultrasonic biometrics of healthy 
eyes in children under 15  M.D. Agatova [10]. 

Constant 0.82 - (dptr / mm) -Mixed as a result of our statistical analysis using linear 
approximation of experimental data The dynamics of refraction and the increase in the AL of 
children with pseudophakic aged 1 to 5 years with abnormal refractogenesis, 3 years after 
extraction  CC and IOL implantation. 
The refractive force of IOL varied in the I group - from (+) 16.0 to (+) 21,5 dptr, in group II from 
(+) 19.0 to (+) 24,0,2 dptr.  The magnitude of the age hypocorrection was +3.0 - +8.0 dptr.  
Keratometric indicators were in the range from 39.94 to 45.75 dptr.  The magnitude of the AL of 
the eyeball from 18.5 to 24.25 mm. 
Analysis of indicators of children's refraction, conducted 3 months after extraction CC with 
implantation IOL  made it possible to reveal the deviation from the planned - target refraction in 
the main group of 9.6%, in the control - in 41% cases.  In the control group, myopia is registered 
with a light degree of 4.6% and emmetropy, disproportionate age (reinforcement of refractive) in 
36.4% of cases, respectively (Table 1). 

Table 1 
Dynamics of children refraction 
(n - the number of eyes) 

Refraction 
Groups 

Emmetropia, 
disproportionate 
to age 
 

Hypermetropia 
age-appropriate (target 
refraction) 

Mild myopi  
 

Total 
 
 

abs. (%) abs. (%) abs. (%) abs.. 
 

(%) 

Basic  
(n= 21) 

2 9,6 19 90,4 - - 21 100 

Control  
(n= 22) 

8 36,4 13 59 1 4,6 22 100 

 

Refractometry 12 months after ÑC extraction with IOL implantation revealed a deviation
from the target refraction in the main group in 16.6%, in the control group-in 54.5% of
cases. In the control group, mild myopia was registered in 13.6% and emmetropia,



Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

Volume-1
Issue-1

12

disproportionate to age, in 40.9% of cases, respectively. Target refraction was achieved
in the main group in 83.3%, in the control group-in 45.4% of cases (Table 2.).

Table 2 
Dynamics of children refraction 
(n - the number of eyes) 

Refraction 
Groups 

Emmetropia, 
disproportionate 
to age 
 

Hypermetropia 
age-appropriate (target 
refraction) 

Mild myopi  
 

Total 
 
 

abs. (%) abs. (%) abs.. (%) abs.. 
 

(%) 

Basic  
n=18 

3 16,6 15 83,3 - - 18 100 

Control  
 n=22 

9 40,9 10 45,4 3 13,6 22 100 

 

 In the patients of the main group, visual functions reached an average of 0.5±0.001, in the 
control group 0.2±0.001 (Table 3). 

Table 3. 
Indicators of visual acuity before and after surgery in children (M±m). 

  After the operation 

Before the 
opera tion 

after 3 months через 1 год 

Вasic group 0,03±0,00
1 

(n=21) 

0,27±0,0015 

(n=21) 

0,5±0,001 

(n=18) 

Student's t-test 
  t=133,3(p≤0,05) t=226,27(p≤0,05) 

Control group 

0,03±0,00
1 

 

(n=22) 

0,15±0,002 

(n=22) 

0,2±0,001 

(n=22) 

Student's t-test 
  t= 53.67(p≤0,05) t= 155,56(p≤0,05) 

 
 n- number of eyes 

Conclusion. 
Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that the personalized correction factor Rm in 
the formula for calculating the strength of IOL in children at risk of developing pseudophakic 
myopia allows achieving the target refraction in 83.3% of cases (vs. 54.5% of cases in the 
control group) and reducing the development of strong refraction by 37.9%, as well as increasing 
visual acuity to 0.5±0.001 (vs. 0.2±0.001 in the control group).   



Volume-1
Issue-1

Art of Medicine
International Medical Scientific Journal

13

References
1.Libman, E. S. Condition and Dynamics of disability due to violation of vision in

Russia / E. S. Libman, E. V. Kaleva // IX Congress of Ophthalmologists of Russia:  -
Moscow, 2010. - P. 73.

2.Katarina, L. A., Mikhailova L. A., State of Children's Ophthalmological Service in
the Russian Federation // Russian Pediatric Ophthalmology.  - 2015. - NO 1. - P. 5-10.

3.Khamraeva L.S., Narzullaeva D.U., Katargin L.A., Kruglov T.B. lndices of refraction
in children with pseudophakia predisposed to abnormal refractive error changes after
congenital cataract extraction.  Russian ophthalmological magazine.  2020; 13 (3): 51-55.

4.Khamraeva L.S., Narzullaeva D.U.  About risk factors and forecast of the development
of pseudophacisic myopia in children.  Herald of ophthalmology.  2020; (3): 93-99. (In
Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/oftalma202013603193

5.Chandramouli S.G.,Shilpa G.R., Farhadul.A. Pediatric intraocular lens power
calculation. Journal of Ophthalmic Science and Research.2018;4:232-236 .

6.Lambert S. R. / [et al.]  Comparison of contact lens and intraocular lens correction
of monocular aphakia during infancy: a randomized clinical trial of HOTV optotype
acuity at age 4.5 years and clinical finding at age 5 years // JAMA Ophthalmol. - 2014.
- No 6. - P. 676-682 .

7.Ledoux D. M. [et al.] Pediatric cataract extraction with intraocular lens implantation:
visual acuity outcome when measured at age four years and older / // J. AAPOS. - 2007.
- No 3. - Ð. 218- 224 .

8.Katarina L.A.  Children's ophthalmology federal clinical recommendations.  Moscow.
SENTISS. 2016.

9.Trivedi RH, Wilson ME, et al. Selecting Intraocular Lens Power in Children.
Ophthalmic Pearls Pediatrics. 2006; 35-36 .

10. Kruglova T.B., Kononov L.B.  Features of the calculation of the optchsecine forces
of the intraocular lenses implanted by the first year of life with congenital cataracts.
Herald of ophthalmology.  2013; (4): 66-69.


