3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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

          Background/aims

          To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery.

          Methods

          In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated.

          Results

          Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D.

          Conclusion

          All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

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

          C constant: new concept for ray tracing-assisted intraocular lens power calculation.

          To evaluate the accuracy of the C constant for ray tracing-assisted intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes

            Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) articles published between 2008 and 2015 that contain clinical outcomes data were reviewed and graded for quality, impression, and potential bias. All 97 relevant articles (representing 67 893 eyes) provided a positive or neutral impression of LASIK. Industry bias was not evident. The aggregate loss of 2 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity was 0.61% (359/58 653). The overall percentage of eyes with uncorrected distance visual acuity better than 20/40 was 99.5% (59 503/59 825). The spherical equivalent refraction was within ±1.0 diopter (D) of the target refraction in 98.6% (59 476/60 329) of eyes, with 90.9% (59 954/65 974) within ±0.5 D. In studies reporting patient satisfaction, 1.2% (129/9726) of patients were dissatisfied with LASIK. Aggregate outcomes appear better than those reported in summaries of the safety and effectiveness of earlier laser refractive surgery systems approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Modern results support the safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction of the procedure.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of formula accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation based on measurements by a swept-source optical coherence tomography optical biometer.

              To analyze the results of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using measurements by a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) optical biometer.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                British Journal of Ophthalmology
                Br J Ophthalmol
                BMJ
                0007-1161
                1468-2079
                March 22 2021
                April 2021
                April 2021
                June 10 2020
                : 105
                : 4
                : 484-489
                Article
                10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193
                32522789
                ea23d2ac-89bd-41bb-b859-f8bf162737b1
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article