Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Ophthalmol. 2015 Mar;159(3):577-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.11.036. Epub 2014 Dec 15.

Accuracy of the refractive prediction determined by multiple currently available intraocular lens power calculation formulas in small eyes.

Author information

1
Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gianlucacarifi@gmail.com.
2
Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To observe the refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in small adult eyes, and to investigate the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction formulas.

DESIGN:

Retrospective interventional case series.

METHODS:

We included consecutive small eyes undergoing uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery with a single highly powerful IOL (Acrysof SA60AT) implanted in the capsular bag (range of powers +35.0 to +40.0 diopters [D]), at the Cataract Centre for Moorfields Eye Hospital. Exclusion criteria were combined or previous intraocular surgical procedures, and any type of intraoperative complications. Main outcome measures were mean prediction errors with Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, SRK-T, and SRK-II IOL power prediction formulas and proportions of eyes achieving absolute errors within the dioptric ranges of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 D of target and emmetropia, respectively. The ANOVA test was used to compare the refractive results among various formulas.

RESULTS:

Twenty-eight eyes were studied; the mean numerical error was 0.22 ± 1.22 D and the mean absolute error was 0.95 ± 0.78 D with the adopted Hoffer Q formula; 39%, 61%, and 89% of the eyes had a final refraction within 0.5 D, 1.0 D, and 2.0 D of target, respectively. None of the latest-generation formulas significantly outperformed the others (P = .245).

CONCLUSIONS:

The Hoffer Q formula led to good or fair refractive outcomes in less than two thirds of the cases. With Holladay 1 and 2 and Haigis formulas, outcomes would have not been significantly different. The SRK formulas yielded less accurate predictions. Possible reasons are discussed.

PMID:
25524494
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajo.2014.11.036
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center