Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ophthalmology. 2018 Feb;125(2):169-178. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027. Epub 2017 Sep 23.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.

Author information

1
The Permanent Medical Group, Redwood City Medical Center, Redwood City, California. Electronic address: Ronald.Melles@kp.org.
2
Department of Ophthalmology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
3
The Permanent Medical Group, Redwood City Medical Center, Redwood City, California.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, and SRK/T) in the prediction of postoperative refraction using a single optical biometry device.

DESIGN:

Retrospective consecutive case series.

PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 13 301 cataract operations with an AcrySof SN60WF implant and 5200 operations with a SA60AT implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX).

METHODS:

All patients undergoing cataract surgery between July 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, with Lenstar 900 optical biometry were eligible. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis, resulting in a total of 18 501 cases. We compared the performance of each formula with respect to the error in predicted spherical equivalent and evaluated the effect of applying the Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment for eyes with axial length >25.0 mm on 4 of the formulas.

RESULTS:

For the SN60WF, the standard deviation of the prediction error, in order of lowest to highest, was the Barrett Universal II (0.404), Olsen (0.424), Haigis (0.437), Holladay 2 (0.450), Holladay 1 (0.453), SRK/T (0.463), and Hoffer Q (0.473), and the results for the SA60AT were similar. The Barrett formula was significantly better than the other formulas in postoperative refraction prediction (P < 0.01) for both IOL types. Application of the WK axial length modification generally resulted in a shift from hyperopic to myopic outcomes in long eyes.

CONCLUSIONS:

Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest prediction error for the 2 IOL models studied.

PMID:
28951074
DOI:
10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center