A O Khan1, A AlGaeed. 1. Division of Pediatric Ophthalmology, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. arif.khan@mssm.edu
Abstract
AIM: To compare the following two methods of paediatric secondary posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL) determination with the Holladay formula: (1) estimation from the aphakic refraction alone (using assumed keratometry (K) of 44 diopters); and (2) calculation based on preoperative measured biometry. METHODS: (1) Retrospective medical record review in a referral eye hospital of children with aphakia aged < or =12 years who underwent secondary PCIOL implantation with an Alcon MA60BM lens; (2) PCIOL determination for a plano refraction by the above two methods (estimation and calculation); and (3) prediction of pseudophakic refraction for the PCIOL actually implanted by the above two methods compared with the actual pseudophakic refraction. RESULTS: 50 eyes of 30 children with aphakia were studied. The estimated (mean, 95% confidence interval (CI)) secondary PCIOL values (25.81, +/-1.65 D) and the calculated secondary PCIOL values (26.35, +/-1.50 D) were not significantly different (mean absolute value of the difference 1.86 D, 95% CI +/-0.41 D) by the two-tailed paired t test at alpha = 0.05 (p = 0.11). For each eye, the pseudophakic refractions predicted by the two methods for the PCIOL that was actually implanted differed, both from each other and from the actual pseudophakic refraction (repeated-measures analysis of variance, p<0.001; Tukey test, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The method of PCIOL estimation from the aphakic refraction alone provides values similar to those obtained by a standard technique and can be useful if biometry is unavailable. Targeting a pseudophakic refraction in paediatric aphakia is prone to error.
AIM: To compare the following two methods of paediatric secondary posterior chamber intraocular lens (PCIOL) determination with the Holladay formula: (1) estimation from the aphakic refraction alone (using assumed keratometry (K) of 44 diopters); and (2) calculation based on preoperative measured biometry. METHODS: (1) Retrospective medical record review in a referral eye hospital of children with aphakia aged < or =12 years who underwent secondary PCIOL implantation with an Alcon MA60BM lens; (2) PCIOL determination for a plano refraction by the above two methods (estimation and calculation); and (3) prediction of pseudophakic refraction for the PCIOL actually implanted by the above two methods compared with the actual pseudophakic refraction. RESULTS: 50 eyes of 30 children with aphakia were studied. The estimated (mean, 95% confidence interval (CI)) secondary PCIOL values (25.81, +/-1.65 D) and the calculated secondary PCIOL values (26.35, +/-1.50 D) were not significantly different (mean absolute value of the difference 1.86 D, 95% CI +/-0.41 D) by the two-tailed paired t test at alpha = 0.05 (p = 0.11). For each eye, the pseudophakic refractions predicted by the two methods for the PCIOL that was actually implanted differed, both from each other and from the actual pseudophakic refraction (repeated-measures analysis of variance, p<0.001; Tukey test, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The method of PCIOL estimation from the aphakic refraction alone provides values similar to those obtained by a standard technique and can be useful if biometry is unavailable. Targeting a pseudophakic refraction in paediatric aphakia is prone to error.