3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accuracy of New Generation Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Vitrectomized Eyes

      , , , , , , , ,
      American Journal of Ophthalmology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To compare the prediction accuracy of new intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO], Kane and Ladas Super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) with Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment in vitrectomized eyes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500

            Purpose To compare the measurements and failure rates obtained with a new swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based biometry to IOLMaster 500. Setting Eye Clinic, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Design Observational cross-sectional study and evaluation of a new diagnostic technology. Methods 188 eyes of 101 subjects were included in the study. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power (K1 and K2) and the measurement failure rate with the new Zeiss IOLMaster 700 were compared with those obtained with the IOLMaster 500. The results were evaluated using Bland–Altman analyses. The differences between both methods were assessed using the paired samples t test, and their correlation was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mean age was 68.32±12.71 years and the male/female ratio was 29/72. The agreements between two devices were outstanding regarding AL (ICC=1.0), ACD (ICC=0.920), K1 (ICC=0.992) and K2 (ICC=0.989) values. IOLMaster 700 was able to measure ACD AL, K1 and K2 in all eyes within high-quality SD limits of the manufacturer. IOLMaster 500 was able to measure ACD in 175 eyes, whereas measurements were not possible in the remaining 13 eyes. AL measurements were not possible for 17 eyes with IOLMaster 500. Nine of these eyes had posterior subcapsular cataracts and eight had dense nuclear cataracts. Conclusions Although the agreement between the two devices was excellent, the IOLMaster 700 was more effective in obtaining biometric measurements in eyes with posterior subcapsular and dense nuclear cataracts.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                American Journal of Ophthalmology
                American Journal of Ophthalmology
                Elsevier BV
                00029394
                September 2020
                September 2020
                : 217
                : 81-90
                Article
                10.1016/j.ajo.2020.04.035
                32387430
                33b51361-8f77-426a-8f5c-84b76ded1afa
                © 2020

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article