Literature DB >> 28780778

IOL Power Calculation in Short and Long Eyes.

Kenneth J Hoffer1,2, Giacomo Savini3.   

Abstract

An analysis of the studies published in the past 50 years reveals that the Haigis, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 2 formulas are the best options for intraocular lens power prediction in short eyes (<22 mm). In long eyes (>26 mm), the Barrett Universal II, Haigis (with optimized constants), Olsen, and SRK/T formulas provide the most accurate outcomes for intraocular lens power prediction. Copyright 2017 Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IOL power calculation; axial length; refractive error

Mesh：

Year:  2017        PMID： 28780778     DOI： 10.22608/APO.2017338

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)        ISSN： 2162-0989


  17 in total

1.  Influence of lens position as detected by an anterior segment analysis system on postoperative refraction in cataract surgery.

Authors:  Jia-Ju Zhang; Jian-Qing Li; Chen Li; Yi-Hong Cao; Pei-Rong Lu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-07-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Accuracy of segmented measurement of axial length in ultra-high myopia filled with silicone oil using immersion B-scan ultrasonography.

Authors:  Qing-Hua Yang; Hong-Tao Zhang; Xiao-Qi Li; Bing Chen; Zhao-Hui Li; Yi-Fei Huang; Xin Jin; Ying Zhang; Li-Qiang Wang
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 1.645

3.  Algorithmic intraocular lens power calculation formula selection by keratometry, anterior chamber depth and axial length.

Authors:  Jung Wan Kim; Youngsub Eom; Eun Gyu Yoon; Young Choi; Jong Suk Song; Ji Won Jeong; Seh Kwang Park; Hyo Myung Kim
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 3.988

4.  Effectiveness, Sensitivity, and Specificity of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Short Eyes.

Authors:  Wiktor Stopyra
Journal:  Turk J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-06-29

5.  Bilateral implantation of +56 and +58 diopter custom-made intraocular lenses in patient with extreme nanophthalmos.

Authors:  Tadas Naujokaitis; Debora Scharf; Isabella Baur; Ramin Khoramnia; Gerd U Auffarth
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol Case Rep       Date:  2020-10-09

6.  Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry.

Authors:  Tomoaki Higashiyama; Hazuki Mori; Fumi Nakajima; Masahito Ohji
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Visual And Refractive Outcomes In Hyperopic Pseudophakic Patients Implanted With A Trifocal Intraocular Lens.

Authors:  José F Alfonso; Andrés Fernández-Vega-Cueto; Belén Alfonso-Bartolozzi; Ignacio Rodríguez-Uña; Robert Montés-Micó
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-11-20

8.  Inter-ocular and inter-visit differences in ocular biometry and refractive outcomes after cataract surgery.

Authors:  Hyun Sup Choi; Hyo Soon Yoo; Yerim An; Sam Young Yoon; Sung Pyo Park; Yong-Kyu Kim
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Disruptive Innovation and Refractive IOLs: How the Game Will Change With Adjustable IOLs.

Authors:  David F Chang
Journal:  Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec

10.  Comparing prediction accuracy between total keratometry and conventional keratometry in cataract surgery with refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Ho Seok Chung; Jae Lim Chung; Young Jun Kim; Hun Lee; Jae Yong Kim; Hungwon Tchah
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 4.379
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.