Retrospective assessment of accuracy of nine intraocular lens power calculation formulae in eyes with axial myopia

Author:

Shetty Naren1,Shetty Rohit2,Nuijts Rudy M M A3,Satija Anuj1,Roy Abhijit S4,Kaweri Luci1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cataract and Refractive Services, Narayana Nethralaya, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

2. Department of Cornea and Refractive Services, Narayana Nethralaya, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

3. Department of Cornea and Refractive Surgery, University Eye Clinic Maastricht, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

4. Imaging, Biomechanics and Mathematical Modelling Solutions, Narayana Nethralaya Foundation, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine conventional and newer-generation formulae in calculating intraocular lens power in eyes with axial myopia. Setting: Tertiary eye care center, Bengaluru, India. Design: Retrospective cross-sectional, comparative study conducted in India. Methods: Patients undergoing uneventful phacoemulsification in eyes with axial length >26 mm were included. Preoperative biometry was done using Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland). Single eye of patients undergoing bilateral implantation was randomly selected. Optimized lens constants were used to calculate the predicted postoperative refraction of each formula, which was then compared with the actual refractive outcomes to give the prediction errors, following which subgroup analysis was performed. The Kane formula, Barrett universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill Radial Basis Function (Hill RBF) 3.0, Olsen formula, along with Wang Koch–adjusted four formulae, that is, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formula, were compared for intraocular lens power calculations. Results: One hundred and sixty-five eyes that fulfilled all the inclusion criteria were studied. Hill RBF 3.0 had the lowest mean and median absolute prediction errors (0.355 and 0.275, respectively) compared to all formulas. In subgroup analysis (26–28, >28–30, and >30 mm), significant difference was seen only in extremely long eyes (>30 mm). The Hill RBF 3.0 formula generated the maximum percentage of eyes with refractive errors within ±0.25, ±0.5, ±0.75, and ±1 D (46%, 76.2%, 89.9%, and 95.8%, respectively). Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating all the formulas exclusively in the myopic eyes. Hill RBF 3 was found to be superior in accuracy to all other formulas.

Publisher

Medknow

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3