Qiwei Wang1, Wu Jiang2, Tiao Lin3, Xiaohang Wu1, Haotian Lin1, Weirong Chen1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. 3. The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Intraocular lens (IOL) power selection is a critical factor affecting visual outcome after IOL implantation in short eyes. Many formulas have been developed to achieve a precise prediction of the IOL power. However, controversy regarding the accuracy remains. BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of different IOL power calculation formulas in short eyes. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with the axial length of eyes less than 22 mm from previously reported studies. METHODS: A comprehensive search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted by October 2016. We assessed the methodological quality using a modified QUADAS-2 tool and performed analysis on weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) among different formulas. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The between-group difference of MAE was evaluated with weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Ten observational studies, involving 1161 eyes, were enrolled to compare six formulas: Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II. Among them, the Holladay 2 introduced the smallest overall MAE (0.496D) without statistical significance. The difference of MAE is statistically significant between Haigis and Hoffer Q (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.003), Haigis and SRK/T (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.009), Haigis and SRK II (mean difference = -0.41D, P = 0.01). For publication bias and small-study effect, neither funnel plot nor egger's test detected statistical finding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The overall evidence from the studies confirmed the superiority of Haigis over Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II in prediction IOL power in short eyes.
IMPORTANCE: Intraocular lens (IOL) power selection is a critical factor affecting visual outcome after IOL implantation in short eyes. Many formulas have been developed to achieve a precise prediction of the IOL power. However, controversy regarding the accuracy remains. BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of different IOL power calculation formulas in short eyes. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with the axial length of eyes less than 22 mm from previously reported studies. METHODS: A comprehensive search in Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted by October 2016. We assessed the methodological quality using a modified QUADAS-2 tool and performed analysis on weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) among different formulas. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The between-group difference of MAE was evaluated with weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Ten observational studies, involving 1161 eyes, were enrolled to compare six formulas: Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II. Among them, the Holladay 2 introduced the smallest overall MAE (0.496D) without statistical significance. The difference of MAE is statistically significant between Haigis and Hoffer Q (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.003), Haigis and SRK/T (mean difference = -0.07D, P = 0.009), Haigis and SRK II (mean difference = -0.41D, P = 0.01). For publication bias and small-study effect, neither funnel plot nor egger's test detected statistical finding. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The overall evidence from the studies confirmed the superiority of Haigis over Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II in prediction IOL power in short eyes.
Authors: Elaine M Tran; Kevin S Tang; Allison J Chen; Michael L Chen; David R Rivera; Jorge J Rivera; Paul B Greenberg Journal: Fed Pract Date: 2020-03
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
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Noemi Burguera; David Piñero Journal: Int Ophthalmol Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 2.029
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Ana Tauste; David P Piñero Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 1.909