Third- and fourth-generation formulas for intraocular lens power calculation before and after phakic intraocular lens insertion in high myopia

Amro, Mazen; Chanbour, Wassef; Arej, Nicolas; Jarade, Elias

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.07.053

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, the accuracy of IOL calculation formulas in determining the postoperative refraction in our study was consistent with the results of a previous study on secondary scleral-fixated IOL implantation, which showed that Haigis generally underperformed compared to Holladay 1 and SRK/T (15). However, our results differed from those of studies of routine cataract surgery that reported Haigis and Barrett II to have a worse predicted outcome than the third-generation formulas (23)(24)(25)(26)(27). Nevertheless, after constants were optimized, five formulas resulted in >68% (with an increase of 7.3% to 13.6%) within ±1.00 D of the PE.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with previous studies, patients with inadequate capsular support, due to conditions such as congenital ectopia lentis, often have a flatter cornea (4,11) and longer AL (10) than normal eyes; thus, using the lens constants from the ULIB website, which were acquired based on normal populations, will naturally reduce the accuracy of the third-generation formulas. In contrast, a preoperative ACD is required in the onward formulas including Barrett II and Haigis (23,24). As reported in a previous study (25), it is not surprising that formulas that use more than two variables can help to acquire good outcomes for routine cataract surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

Lian

Young

et al. 2021

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is no consensus on which intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula provides the best refractive prediction in patients with inadequate capsular support whose anterior ocular anatomic structure differs from that of normal subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy and performance of IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II) in predicting postoperative refractive prediction error (PE) for this subgroup of patients. Methods: A total of 110 eyes from 110 patients with insufficient capsular support who underwent scleral fixation of an IOL at the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from July 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Preoperative optical biometrics were measured with the IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The performance of each formula in predicting PE was compared, and the effect of keratometry and axial length (AL) on PE was evaluated for each formula using univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. Results: The mean age of the included participants was 12.54±9.66 years. The Sanders, Retzlaff, and Manus/theoretical (SRK/T) (−0.25 D) and Holladay 1 (−0.28 D) formulas tended to have minimal postoperative PE compared to the Hoffer Q (−0.62 D), Haigis (−0.67 D), and Barrett Universal II (−0.62 D) formulas (P=0.005). All formulas individually resulted in <70% of eyes within ±1.00 D of the PE.Nevertheless, after constants were optimized, these formulas led to 7.3% to 13.6% of increase within ±1.00 D of the PE. Keratometry and AL were significantly associated with PE for each formula, but the relationship was weakest for SRK/T. Conclusions:In eyes with insufficient capsular support, postoperative PE was minimal for the SRK/T formula, which suggested SRK/T to be the best choice, especially when the keratometry and AL of patients are extremely large or small.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

Lian

Young

et al. 2021

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies had compared the biometric parameters and IOL power calculation before and right after PC-PIOL (Visian ICL or Eyecryl PIOL) implantation, and found IOL power prediction accuracy among the BUII, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. 30,31 However, these studies were conducted in participants with transparent lens who did not receive actual cataract surgery, thus could not reflect the performance of IOL calculation formulas in a real clinical setting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Patients Undergoing Combined Phakic Intraocular Lens Removal and Cataract Surgery

Zhang

Han

Liu

et al. 2022

American Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

“…In modern cataract surgery, it is important not only to remove the cataract but also to achieve accurate postoperative refractive error. The higher the generation of the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula, the higher the accuracy, and more ocular biometric parameters are required [1]. In this regard, precise measurement of ocular biometry is critical for determining the power of IOLs [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Choi

et al. 2021

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Precise measurement of ocular biometry is critical for determining intraocular lens power. Newly developed swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) - based ocular biometric devices, ANTERION and CASIA2 provide ocular biometric measurements as IOLMaster 700. This study aimed to assess agreement between three devices. Methods This retrospective comparative study includes patients with cataract who underwent ocular biometric measurements with three devices, ANTERION, CASIA2, and IOLMaster 700, at Seoul National University Hospital, in April 2020. Anterior keratometry, total keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and axial length (AL) were the main parameters for the comparison. To assess the agreement between the devices, intraclass coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used. Results A total of 47 eyes of 29 patients were measured with three devices. Average anterior keratometry showed excellent agreement (ICC ≥ 0.989), and the mean difference was less than 0.1 D. However, the ICC of the total average keratometry ranged from 0.808 to 0.952, and the difference was more than 0.43 D. The AL measured by ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 showed excellent agreement (ICC = 0.999), and the mean difference was 0.005 mm. The ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 did not obtain AL in six (12.8%) and three (6.4%) cases, respectively (P = 0.001 by Fisher’s exact test). The CCT, ACD, and LT also showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.9). Conclusions The new SS-OCT-based devices, ANTERION, and CASIA2 showed a good agreement with IOLMaster 700 in measuring ocular biometry except for the total keratometry. The AL of ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 showed excellent agreement.

show abstract

Third- and fourth-generation formulas for intraocular lens power calculation before and after phakic intraocular lens insertion in high myopia

Cited by 18 publications

References 16 publications

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Patients Undergoing Combined Phakic Intraocular Lens Removal and Cataract Surgery

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About