Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula in patients with normal axial length

Miraftab, Mohammad; Hashemi, Hassan; Fotouhi, Akbar; Khabazkhoob, Mehdi; Rezvan, Farhad; Asgari, Soheila

doi:10.4103/0974-9233.142266

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, MAEs in each subgroup were not significantly different between the five formulas. [ 17 ] Presently, in eyes with AL 22.00–24.49 mm the Haigis formula might underestimate the ELP in eyes with an ACD < 2.5 mm and the relatively large number of samples with an ACD 2.50–3.49 mm reveals the superior accuracy of the Holladay 1 formula. This finding is consistent with previous studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…[ 3 , 12 – 15 ] All third-generation formulas document comparable accuracy in normal axial lengths as well as the Haigis formula. [ 3 , 4 , 8 , 17 , 19 ] The influence of axial lengths on refractive outcomes has been demonstrated. But, relatively few studies have reported the effect of different preoperative ACD among the IOL formulas in cataract patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have reported the influence of ACD on short and normal eyes. [ 16 , 17 ] To our knowledge, no other studies explored the effect of ACD on long eyes. We followed the protocols introduced by Hoffer et al[ 21 ] and obtained sufficient data to perform a statistical analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Miraftab et al reviewed 309 eyes with AL 22.00–24.49 mm and divided them into three subgroups (ACD ≤ 3.0, 3.0–3.5, and ≥ 3.5 mm). [ 17 ] The authors described that predictions with the Haigis formula were closest to emmetropia among the five formulas (Haigis, SRK-II, Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay 1) at an ACD > 3.5 mm. In addition, the Haigis formula was significantly less accurate than the SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas in the total sample.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 3 , 12 – 15 ] Based on these studies, Eom et al showed that the differences between the predicted refractive errors of the Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae increased as ACD decreased in short eyes[ 16 ], and Miraftab et al reported that the Haigis formula is the preferred choice in patients with a normal AL and ACD exceeding 3.5 mm. [ 17 ] However, no other studies have directly compared the refractive outcomes of modern IOL calculation formulae according to the ACD in short, normal and long eyes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

PurposeTo investigate the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD) on the refractive outcomes of the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae in short, normal, long and extremely long eyes.MethodsThis retrospective study involved patients who had uncomplicated cataract surgery. Preoperative axial length (AL) was divided into four subgroups: short (< 22.00 mm), normal (22.00–24.49 mm), long (24.50–25.99 mm), extremely long (≥ 26.00 mm). Preoperative ACD was divided into three subgroups: < 2.5, 2.50–3.49, and ≥ 3.5 mm. Median absolute errors (MedAEs) predicted by the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae were compared with the Friedman test. Post-hoc analysis involved the Wilcoxon signed rank test with a Bonferroni adjustment. Correlations between ACD and the predictive refractive errors of the four formulas were analyzed.ResultsIn short eyes with an ACD < 2.5 mm, the Haigis formula revealed the highest MedAE. The difference in MedAE with the Hoffer Q formula (which had the lowest MedAE) was statistically significant (P = 0.002). In normal eyes, the Haigis formula significantly differed from the Holladay 1 (P = 0.002) and Hoffer Q (P = 0.005) formulae in the ACD < 2.5 mm group. In long eyes and extremely long eyes with an ACD ≥ 3.5 mm, the differences in MedAEs were statistically significant (P = 0.018, P = 0.001, respectively) and the Haigis formula had the lowest MedAEs in both subgroups (0.29 D, 0.30 D, respectively). In the total of 1,123 eyes, refractive errors predicted by the Haigis formula showed a significant negative correlation with the ACD (R2 = 0.002, P = 0.047).ConclusionsThe Hoffer Q formula is preferred over other formulae in short eyes with an ACD shallower than 2.5 mm. In short and normal eyes with an ACD < 2.5 mm the Haigis formula might underestimate ELP. The Haigis formula is the preferred choice in eyes with an AL ≥ 24.5 mm and an ACD ≥ 3.5 mm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%