Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations in paediatric eyes

Li, Jianbing; Liu, Zhenzhen; Wang, Ruixing; Cheng, Huanhuan; Zhao, Jing; Liu, Liangping; Chen, Weirong; Wu, Mingxing; Liu, Yizhi

doi:10.1111/ceo.13701

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that age was a major factor affecting APE. Li et al [25] obtained the similar result with us. Ramesh Kekunnaya et al [6] reported that, within this age group, age did not influence the absolute PEs for any of the formulas.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages

Kou

Leng

et al. 2020

Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. This study aims to compare the accuracy of five intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Holladay 2) for pediatric eyes in children of different ages. Methods. In this prospective study, patients who received cataract surgery and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were enrolled. We compared the calculation accuracy of 5 formulas at 1 month postoperatively and performed subgroup analysis with the patients divided into three groups according to their ages at the time of surgery as follows: group 1 (age ≤ 2 years, 35 eyes), group 2 (2 years < age < 5 years, 38 eyes), and group 3 (age > 5 years, 29 eyes). Results. 75 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in this study. The Haigis formula got the smallest PE among all formulas in all three groups. With regard to APE, there were no statistical differences among the formulas except group 2, with the SRK/T formula a little smaller, the Holladay 2 formula a little larger in group 1, and the Haigis formula a little smaller in group 3. In group 2, the Haigis formula had the lowest APE (0.87 ± 0.61 D), while the Holladay 2 formula had the largest (1.71 ± 1.20 D, p<0.001), followed by the Holladay 1 formula (1.51 ± 1.07 D, p=0.002). On comparing the percentage of APE within 0.5 D and 1.0 D obtained with 5 formulas in each group, there were no statistical differences. The SRK/T formula and the Holladay 1 formula showed the highest percentage (40.00% and 60.00%) in group 1. While the Haigis formula got the highest percentage in less than 0.5 D (34.21%) and less than 1 D (60.53%) in group 2. In group 3, the Holladay 2 formula and the Haigis formula got the highest percentage less than 0.5 D (58.62%) and less than 1 D (79.31%). The multiple linear regression indicated that the age at the time of surgery was a significant factor affecting the accuracy of APE; after removing the age, AL was the only factor that affected the accuracy of APE. Conclusion. The SRK/T and the Holladay 1 formulas were relatively accurate in patients younger than 2 years old, while the Haigis formula performed better in patients older than 2.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages

Kou

Leng

et al. 2020

Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They included different IOL types which may have resulted in difficult generation of optimized lens constants and they did not report the number of patients <2 years. 19 In the current study we have found that all IOL power calculation formulae tend to be variable in pediatric eyes especially in children <2 years, with AL<19 mm and when K-readings are >46.5 D. SRK/T formula was the best in our series with comparable results to Holladay I formula. The Hoffer-Q was the worst which is consistent with previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…In addition, the Hoffer-Q formula requires the measurement of the surgeon factor which may show greater variations in eyes with short axial lengths and smaller white-to-white diameter. 19 This suggests that factors such as the effect of the dynamics of shallower AC in pediatric eyes, the variety of implantation sites, and the postoperative dynamics attributable to vitreous pressure, haptic angulations, posterior capsule contraction, and the frequent proliferation of retained lens material could affect the postoperative refraction. These factors are not accounted for by current available formulae.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Value of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulae in Children

Shuaib

Elhusseiny

Hassanein

et al. 2021

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulae in a large cohort of children who underwent IOL implantation. Setting Cairo University Children Hospital. Design Retrospective, case series. Methods A retrospective chart review of all children <14 years, who underwent primary or secondary IOL implantation in Cairo University Children Hospital from January 2016 to December 2019, was performed. Absolute prediction error (APE) was calculated for SRKII, SRK/T, Holladay I and Hoffer-Q formulae using the patients’ AL, keratometric (K) readings, implanted IOL power and refraction done two months postoperatively. Results The study included 308 eyes of 255 patients with a mean age of 4.74 ± 3.19 years at the time of surgery. The mean K-reading was 43.42 ± 3.57 diopters (D) and mean AL was 22.01 ± 1.93 mm. The percentage of eyes with APE within 0.5D was 27.7% (85 eyes), 32.2% (99 eyes), 30.6% (94 eyes) and 25.4% (78 eyes) with SRK II, SRK/T, Holladay I and Hoffer-Q formulae, respectively. APE was significantly lower with the SRK/T formula ( P ≤0.004) and significantly higher with the Hoffer-Q formula ( P ≤ 0.002). There was a negative correlation between the age of the patient and the APE of the SRK II formula ( P =0.02). Moreover, the SRK/T, Holladay and Hoffer-Q formulae APEs were affected by the average k-readings ( P =0.019, 0.005 and 0.035) respectively. Conclusion The SRK/T and Holladay I formulae were the most predictable formulae in IOL power calculation in pediatric eyes.

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarizes the descriptive characteristics of the included studies. A total of 1,647 eyes from 12 studies were enrolled in our meta-analysis (20,21,(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39). Five of the studies were conducted in the United States, three in China, three in other Asian countries, and one in Canada.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Cataract Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhong

et al. 2021

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Among the various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas available in clinical settings, which one can yield more accurate results is still inconclusive. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the IOL power calculation formulas used for pediatric cataract patients.Methods: Observational cohort studies published through April 2021 were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. For each included study, the mean differences of the mean prediction error and mean absolute prediction error (APE) were analyzed and compared using the random-effects model.Results: Twelve studies involving 1,647 eyes were enrolled in the meta-analysis, and five formulas were compared: Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II. Holladay 1 exhibited the smallest APE (0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92–1.03). For the patients with an axial length (AL) less than 22 mm, SRK/T showed a significantly smaller APE than SRK II (mean difference [MD]: −0.37; 95% CI: −0.63 to −0.12). For the patients younger than 24 months, SRK/T had a significantly smaller APE than Hoffer Q (MD: −0.28; 95% CI: −0.51 to −0.06). For the patients aged 24–60 months, SRK/T presented a significantly smaller APE than Holladay 2 (MD: −0.60; 95% CI: −0.93 to −0.26).Conclusion: Due to the rapid growth and high variability of pediatric eyes, the formulas for IOL calculation should be considered according to clinical parameters such as age and AL. The evidence obtained supported the accuracy and reliability of SRK/T under certain conditions.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: INPLASY202190077.

show abstract

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations in paediatric eyes

Cited by 16 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages

Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages

Predictive Value of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulae in Children

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Cataract Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About