Adi Abulafia1, Graham D Barrett2, Michael Rotenberg2, Guy Kleinmann2, Adi Levy2, Olga Reitblat2, Douglas D Koch2, Li Wang2, Ehud I Assia2. 1. From the Ein-Tal Eye Center (Abulafia, Rotenberg, Kleinmann, Levy, Reitblat, Assia), Tel-Aviv, the Meir Medical Center (Assia), Kfar-Saba, the Tel-Aviv University (Abulafia, Assia), Ramat Aviv, and the Kaplan Medical Center (Rotenberg, Kleinmann), Rehovot, Israel; the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (Abulafia, Barrett), Nedlands, Australia; the Cullen Eye Institute (Koch, Wang), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: adi.abulafia@gmail.com. 2. From the Ein-Tal Eye Center (Abulafia, Rotenberg, Kleinmann, Levy, Reitblat, Assia), Tel-Aviv, the Meir Medical Center (Assia), Kfar-Saba, the Tel-Aviv University (Abulafia, Assia), Ramat Aviv, and the Kaplan Medical Center (Rotenberg, Kleinmann), Rehovot, Israel; the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (Abulafia, Barrett), Nedlands, Australia; the Cullen Eye Institute (Koch, Wang), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm. SETTING: Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The postoperative refraction results in myopic eyes with an AL over 26.0 mm were compared with the predicted refractions calculated using standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) with optical IOL constants, User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants, and an AL-adjustment method and using new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). RESULTS: In 76 (71.7%) of 106 eyes, the IOL was 6.0 diopters (D) or more (Group A) and in 30 eyes (28.3%) was less than 6.0 D (Group B). In Group A, the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen methods met the benchmark criteria of having a prediction error of ±0.5 D in at least 71.0% of eyes and ±1.0 D in 93.0% of eyes. In Group B, only the Barrett Universal II formula and the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL-adjusted method met those criteria. CONCLUSION: When selecting IOLs for high and extreme myopia, choosing appropriate formulas and methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet benchmark criteria. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm. SETTING: Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The postoperative refraction results in myopic eyes with an AL over 26.0 mm were compared with the predicted refractions calculated using standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) with optical IOL constants, User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants, and an AL-adjustment method and using new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). RESULTS: In 76 (71.7%) of 106 eyes, the IOL was 6.0 diopters (D) or more (Group A) and in 30 eyes (28.3%) was less than 6.0 D (Group B). In Group A, the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen methods met the benchmark criteria of having a prediction error of ±0.5 D in at least 71.0% of eyes and ±1.0 D in 93.0% of eyes. In Group B, only the Barrett Universal II formula and the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL-adjusted method met those criteria. CONCLUSION: When selecting IOLs for high and extreme myopia, choosing appropriate formulas and methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet benchmark criteria. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Jasmine K M Lam; Tommy C Y Chan; Alex L K Ng; Vanissa W S Chow; Victoria W Y Wong; Vishal Jhanji Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Achim Langenbucher; Nóra Szentmáry; Alan Cayless; Michael Müller; Timo Eppig; Simon Schröder; Ekkehart Fabian Journal: Ophthalmic Res Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 2.892