Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: Comparison of 7 formulas

Kane, Jack X; Heerden, Anton Van; Atik, Alp; Petsoglou, Constantinos

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.021

Cited by 275 publications

(237 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table ) . The sample size ranged from 15–608 eyes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table 1). [12][13][14][15]18,19,[24][25][26][27] The sample size ranged from 15-608 eyes. All of the trials utilized IOL master for AL measurement.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 Although some of the early studies considered Holladay 2 as one of the most precise IOL formulas, 10,11 the majority showed no significant difference in accuracy among the formulas (Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II) for patients with short AL. 7,[12][13][14][15] Only a few reports detected the significant difference. Maclaren 16 and Moschos 17 suggested Haigis was significantly more precise than Hoffer Q.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

Wang

Lin

et al. 2017

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table ) . The sample size ranged from 15–608 eyes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

Wang

Lin

et al. 2017

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, Kane et al[21] reported that the mean prediction error of the IOLMaster in eyes with an axial length of ≥26 mm (version 5.4) was 0.21 dpt using the Haigis formula, –0.20 dpt using the Barrett Universal II, and 0.392 dpt or 0.370 dpt as the MedAE. To reduce postoperative refractive error, Wang and colleagues[22, 23] proposed axial length correction formulas for the Holladay I, Haigis, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas in eyes with an axial length of ≥25 mm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometer That Uses Individual Refractive Indices to Measure Axial Length in Cataract Patients

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds: Although the OCT biometer using individual refractive index is available, comparisons of measurement value and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation error with other SS-OCT biometers are not known. Objectives: To compare the new SS-OCT biometer ARGOS (OCTB1), which uses individual refractive indices to measure axial length, with the IOLMaster 700 (OCTB2) and OA-2000 (OLCR), which use equivalent refractive index. Method: Six hundred and twenty-two eyes of 622 patients who had been diagnosed with cataract were enrolled in the study. Among the 158 eyes that had undergone cataract surgery, the postoperative refractive error was evaluated using the Haigis formula. Results: The axial length measured by the OCTB1 showed a proportional bias in comparison with the other two biometers and a fixed bias in eyes with an axial length ≥26 mm. No significant difference was found in the median absolute refractive prediction error (p = 0.3278). However, in eyes with an axial length ≥26 mm, the OCTB1 showed myopic error compared with the other two biometers (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In eyes with long axial length, when the conventional IOL calculation was optimized with the equivalent refractive index-based instrument, we need to consider that IOL calculation using OCTB1 tends to cause slightly myopic refractive prediction error.

show abstract

“…As defined previously [3], refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between postoperative objective refraction expressed as spherical equivalent (ORSE) and the predicted spherical equivalent of the refraction obtained from the preoperative biometry (IOL Master 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Absolute error (AE) was calculated in the standard way as the absolute value of the refractive PE.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary intraocular lens implantation: a large retrospective analysis

Vounotrypidis

Schuster

Mackert

et al. 2018

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate preoperative ocular risk factors and indications for secondary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and compare postoperative complications, visual and refractive outcomes in a tertiary referral center.MethodsPatients older than 14 years that underwent secondary IOL implantation and had a minimum follow-up of 3 months were enrolled in this retrospective case series. Preoperative ocular risk factors, indications for surgery, postoperative complications, and visual and refractive outcomes including prediction error (PE) and absolute error (AE) were evaluated. IOLs were fixated in following positions: anterior chamber (AC), retropupillary iris-claw (IC), sulcus, and capsular bag or sclera.ResultsOne-hundred eighty-two eyes of 174 patients with mean follow-up of 17 ± 13.6 months were evaluated. Leading cause for surgery was IOL dislocation (75%), followed by secondary aphakia (19%) and IOL opacifications (6%). Previous vitrectomy was the major preoperative ocular risk factor (43%). Mean corrected distance visual acuity improved from preoperative 0.68 ± 0.55 to 0.42 ± 0.31LogMAR by the last follow-up (p = 0.001). PE and AE differed highly depending on the indication for surgery (p = 0.041 and p = 0.008, respectively) and the IOL fixation (p = 0.011 and p = 0.028, respectively), with IC-IOLs showing the lowest PE and AE. Postoperative AC-hemorrhage occurred mainly after IC-IOLs (p = 0.003), and postoperative hypotony was significantly higher in eyes with previous uveitis (p = 0.026).ConclusionsPrevious vitrectomy seems to be a major underreported risk factor in eyes that undergo secondary IOL implantation. Refractive outcomes depend on indication for surgery and fixation type, with retropupillary IC-IOLs providing the best refractive results, though not statistically significant compared to other IOL positions.

show abstract

Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: Comparison of 7 formulas

Abstract: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Cited by 275 publications

References 22 publications

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

Clinical Evaluation of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometer That Uses Individual Refractive Indices to Measure Axial Length in Cataract Patients

Secondary intraocular lens implantation: a large retrospective analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About