&lt;p&gt;Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm&lt;/p&gt;

Shrivastava, Ashish; Behera, Pranayee; Kacher, Rajaram; Kumar, Binod

doi:10.2147/opth.s217932

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean numerical error or RPE represents the difference between the postoperative spherical equivalent at the 1-month follow-up and the predicted postoperative spherical equivalent, chosen by the surgeon from a list generated by the optical coherence biometer ( 25 ). A negative predictive error indicates more myopic results, a tendency towards overcorrection, while a positive predictive error indicates more hyperopic results, a tendency towards undercorrection ( 25 ). The MAE was calculated as the magnitude of the prediction error, regardless of the sign ( 25 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A negative predictive error indicates more myopic results, a tendency towards overcorrection, while a positive predictive error indicates more hyperopic results, a tendency towards undercorrection ( 25 ). The MAE was calculated as the magnitude of the prediction error, regardless of the sign ( 25 ). The proportion of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ±2.00 D of the predicted refraction was also calculated in all three groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II were compared in prediction of postoperative refraction for multifocal and implants using a single optical biometry device. The authors included 88 refractive lens exchange and cataract surgeries, with AcrySof IQ PanOptix implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). All eyes were divided into three groups based on axial length (AL), group 1: <22 mm (14 eyes), group 2: 22-24.5 mm (68 eyes) and group 3: >24.5 mm (6 eyes). The refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated for 5 different formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. For eyes with the AL between 22 mm and 24.5 mm the greatest percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.25 D was 32.4% for Haigis formula, followed by Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 with 29.4%. The percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D was 100% only for Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1, 94.1% for SRK/T and 91.2% for Haigis and Hoffer Q. The first and third group with AL <22 and >24.5 mm were too small to have statistical significance due to the reluctancy to use multifocal IOLs on extreme ALs. ANOVA test showed no statistical difference (P=0.166) between the RPEs measured for each formula in this cohort. This study showed no statistical difference between formulas for this trifocal lens implant. There was a tendency for the RPE to be within ±0.25 D for most of the eyes with the Haigis formula, and within ±0.50 D for all the eyes with the Barrett Universal II formula in the group with the AL between 22 and 24.5 mm.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[ 1 ] for their insightful comments related to our recent publication. [ 2 ] We also appreciate their important work in this field,[ 3 4 5 ] and agree that newer generation interocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae are gaining importance in recent times.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Response to comments on: Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths

Khatib

Haldipurkar²,

Shetty³

et al. 2021

Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Прогнозирование послеоперационной рефракции на основе ACD было более точным, чем без учета ACD на коротких глазах и глазах с мелкой передней камерой [5]. На сегодняшний день доступны единичные работы, посвященные анализу вклада ACD в точность расчета оптической силы ИОЛ на коротких глазах [7].…”

Section: Preprintunclassified

“…В то же время наибольшие MAE и MedAE и наименьший процент попадания в целевую рефракцию ±0,5 дптр определен для формулы SRK/T, что свидетельствует о необходимости пересмотра стандартных подходов к расчету оптической силы ИОЛ в данной группе пациентов. Схожие данные получены и в группе с ACD> 2,9 мм, что согласуется с данными литературы [5,7,9]. ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ В работе представлен ана лиз эффективности шести формул для расчета оптической силы ИОЛ в зависимости от глубины передней камеры у пациентов с короткой переднезадней осью.…”

Section: примечание Mne (D) -средняя числовая погрешность Mae(d) -средняя абсолютная погрешность Medaeмедианная абсолютная погрешность D unclassified

Influence of the anterior chamber depth on the accuracy of the intraocular lens optical power calculation in short eyes

Цыганков

Юрьевич²,

Pershin

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. Determination of the relationship between the anterior chamber depth and the and accuracy of the IOL optical power calculating in the eyes with an axial length of less than 22 mm. Materials and methods. A total of 86 patients (133 eyes) with a short axis (from 18.54 to 21.98 (20.7 0.9) mm) were included in the study. Group I (n=40) consisted of patients with an ACD of less than 2, 5 mm. Group II (n=49) included patients with ACD from 2.5 to 2.9 mm Group III (n=44) included patients with ACD greater than 2.9 mm The calculation of the IOL optical power was carried out according to the formula SRK / T, retrospective comparison - according to the formulas Hoffer-Q, Holladay II, Olsen, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. Results. In group I, there were no significant differences when comparing MedAE for the six formulas (p0.05). The highest MedAE values (0.51 and 0.49, respectively) and the smaller MNE range (-0.03 0.89 and -0.01 0.97, respectively) are shown for the formulas Haigis and Barrett Universal II. In group II, the MedAE for the Haigis formula was 0.45, for SRK / T and Olsen it was 0.59 and 0.66. For the Haigis formula, the lowest MNE value (0.05 0.69) is shown. In group III, no significant differences were found when comparing the average values of MedAE (0.05). The lowest MedAE (0.17) and the best MNE values (-0.01 0.58) are shown for the Haigis formula, while the SRK / T formula was characterized by the highest MedAE (0.37). In group II, the refractive index 0.25 and 0.50 D for the Haigis formula was significantly higher. Conclusion. For eyes with an ACD of less than 2.4 mm, none of the formulas showed a significant advantage, while with an ACD of 2.4-2.9 mm and higher, the use of the Haigis formula is recommended, and the SRK / T formula showed the worst result. The data obtained dictate the need to review existing standards for calculating the IOL optical power in patients with short eyes depending on ACD.

show abstract

<p>Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm</p>

Cited by 16 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

Response to comments on: Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths

Influence of the anterior chamber depth on the accuracy of the intraocular lens optical power calculation in short eyes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About