Jack X Kane1, Anton Van Heerden2, Alp Atik2, Constantinos Petsoglou2. 1. From the Department of Ophthalmology (Kane, Van Heerden, Atik), Alfred Health, Melbourne, and the Discipline of Clinical Ophthalmology (Kane, Petsoglou), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jack.x.kane@gmail.com. 2. From the Department of Ophthalmology (Kane, Van Heerden, Atik), Alfred Health, Melbourne, and the Discipline of Clinical Ophthalmology (Kane, Petsoglou), University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK/T, and T2) using IOLMaster biometry and optimized lens constants. SETTING: Public hospital ophthalmology department. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Data from patients having uneventful cataract surgery with Acrysof IQ SN60WF IOL implantation over 5 years were obtained from the biometry and patient charts. Optimized lens constants were calculated for each formula and used to determine the predicted refractive outcome for each patient. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Eyes were separated into subgroups based on axial length (AL) as follows: short (≤22.0 mm), medium (>22.0 to <24.5 mm), medium long (≥24.5 to <26.0 mm), and long (≥26.0 mm). RESULTS: The study included 3241 patients. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest mean absolute prediction error over the entire AL range (P < .001, all formulas) as well as in the medium (P < .001, all formulas), medium-long (P < .001, except Holladay 1 and T2), and long AL (P < .001, except T2) subgroups. No statistically significant difference was seen between formulas in the short AL subgroup. Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula resulted in the highest percentage of eyes with prediction errors between ±0.25 diopter D, ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D. CONCLUSION: In eyes with an AL longer than 22.0 mm, the Barrett Universal II formula was a more accurate predictor of actual postoperative refraction than the other formulas. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK/T, and T2) using IOLMaster biometry and optimized lens constants. SETTING: Public hospital ophthalmology department. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Data from patients having uneventful cataract surgery with Acrysof IQ SN60WF IOL implantation over 5 years were obtained from the biometry and patient charts. Optimized lens constants were calculated for each formula and used to determine the predicted refractive outcome for each patient. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Eyes were separated into subgroups based on axial length (AL) as follows: short (≤22.0 mm), medium (>22.0 to <24.5 mm), medium long (≥24.5 to <26.0 mm), and long (≥26.0 mm). RESULTS: The study included 3241 patients. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest mean absolute prediction error over the entire AL range (P < .001, all formulas) as well as in the medium (P < .001, all formulas), medium-long (P < .001, except Holladay 1 and T2), and long AL (P < .001, except T2) subgroups. No statistically significant difference was seen between formulas in the short AL subgroup. Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula resulted in the highest percentage of eyes with prediction errors between ±0.25 diopter D, ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D. CONCLUSION: In eyes with an AL longer than 22.0 mm, the Barrett Universal II formula was a more accurate predictor of actual postoperative refraction than the other formulas. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
Authors: Yu Luo; Hongyu Li; Lixiong Gao; Jinlin Du; Wenqian Chen; Yi Gao; Zi Ye; Zhaohui Li Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 2.031