Xianfang Rong1, Wenwen He1, Qian Zhu1, Dongjin Qian1, Yi Lu2, Xiangjia Zhu3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and the Eye Institute, Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and the Eye Institute, Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: luyieent@163.com. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and the Eye Institute, Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Shanghai, China. Electronic address: zhuxiangjia1982@126.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with extreme myopia. SETTING: Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Eyes were divided into 3 axial length (AL) groups as follows: 26.0 to 28.0 mm (control), 28.0 to 30.0 mm (extreme myopia 1), and 30.0 mm or more (extreme myopia 2). The mean error (ME) 1 month postoperatively was adjusted to zero by optimizing the lens factor; then, the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were compared between formulas. Factors associated with postoperative refractive errors were analyzed. RESULTS: After optimization, the MEs of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas were 0.04 diopter (D) ± 0.48 (SD), 0.04 ± 0.66 D, and 0.04 ± 0.52 D, respectively, and the MedAEs were 0.37 D, 0.46 D, and 0.39 D, respectively (P = .044; Haigis versus Barrett: P = .038). In the extreme myopia 1 group, all 3 formulas produced small MedAEs (P = .662). In the extreme myopia 2 group, the Haigis formula produced a significantly greater MedAE than the Barrett Universal II formula (P = .007; Haigis versus Olsen: P = .055). The accuracy of the Haigis formula in myopic eyes was affected by the AL and keratometry value, whereas the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas was affected by the AL only. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with an AL of 28.0 to 30.0 mm, all 3 formulas were accurate. In eyes with AL of 30.0 mm or more, the Barrett Universal II formula was better than the Haigis formula, possibly because there were fewer influencing factors.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with extreme myopia. SETTING: Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. DESIGN: Prospective case series. METHODS: Eyes were divided into 3 axial length (AL) groups as follows: 26.0 to 28.0 mm (control), 28.0 to 30.0 mm (extreme myopia 1), and 30.0 mm or more (extreme myopia 2). The mean error (ME) 1 month postoperatively was adjusted to zero by optimizing the lens factor; then, the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were compared between formulas. Factors associated with postoperative refractive errors were analyzed. RESULTS: After optimization, the MEs of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas were 0.04 diopter (D) ± 0.48 (SD), 0.04 ± 0.66 D, and 0.04 ± 0.52 D, respectively, and the MedAEs were 0.37 D, 0.46 D, and 0.39 D, respectively (P = .044; Haigis versus Barrett: P = .038). In the extreme myopia 1 group, all 3 formulas produced small MedAEs (P = .662). In the extreme myopia 2 group, the Haigis formula produced a significantly greater MedAE than the Barrett Universal II formula (P = .007; Haigis versus Olsen: P = .055). The accuracy of the Haigis formula in myopic eyes was affected by the AL and keratometry value, whereas the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas was affected by the AL only. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with an AL of 28.0 to 30.0 mm, all 3 formulas were accurate. In eyes with AL of 30.0 mm or more, the Barrett Universal II formula was better than the Haigis formula, possibly because there were fewer influencing factors.
Authors: Veronica Vargas; Jorge L Alió; Rafael I Barraquer; Justin Christopher D' Antin; Cristina García; Francisco Duch; Joan Balgos; Jorge L Alió Del Barrio Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Wenwen He; Yunqian Yao; Keke Zhang; Yu Du; Jiao Qi; Yinglei Zhang; Shaohua Zhang; Zhennan Zhao; Lei Cai; Qi Fan; Yongxiang Jiang; Jin Yang; Xiangjia Zhu; Yi Lu Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-04