Diogo Hipólito-Fernandes1, Maria Elisa Luís2, Rita Serras-Pereira2, Pedro Gil2, Vitor Maduro2, João Feijão2, Nuno Alves2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) on 9 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas accuracy, in patients with normal axial lengths.
METHODS: Retrospective case series, including patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with insertion of a single IOL model, divided into three groups according to preoperative ACD. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups, according to the LT. Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error was calculated for Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF V.2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, PEARL-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Mean prediction error, mean and median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D and ±1.00D were also calculated.
RESULTS: The study included 695 eyes from 695 patients. For ACD ≤3.0 mm and ≥3.5 mm, mean prediction error of SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 was significantly different from 0 (p<0.05). PEARL-DGS, Kane, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II were more accurate than the Hoffer Q in ACD ≤3.0 mm (p<0.05). Kane, PEARL-DGS, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II revealed the lowest variance of mean and MedAE by ACD and LT subgroup. Haigis and Hill-RBF V.2.0 were significantly influenced by LT, independently of the ACD, with a myopic shift with thin lenses and a hyperopic shift with thick lenses (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: New generation formulas, particularly Kane, PEARL-DGS and EVO V.2.0, seem to be more reliable and stable even in eyes with extreme ACD-LT combinations. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) on 9 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas accuracy, in patients with normal axial lengths.
METHODS: Retrospective case series, including patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with insertion of a single IOL model, divided into three groups according to preoperative ACD. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups, according to the LT. Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error was calculated for Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF V.2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, PEARL-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Mean prediction error, mean and median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D and ±1.00D were also calculated.
RESULTS: The study included 695 eyes from 695 patients. For ACD ≤3.0 mm and ≥3.5 mm, mean prediction error of SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 was significantly different from 0 (p<0.05). PEARL-DGS, Kane, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II were more accurate than the Hoffer Q in ACD ≤3.0 mm (p<0.05). Kane, PEARL-DGS, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II revealed the lowest variance of mean and MedAE by ACD and LT subgroup. Haigis and Hill-RBF V.2.0 were significantly influenced by LT, independently of the ACD, with a myopic shift with thin lenses and a hyperopic shift with thick lenses (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: New generation formulas, particularly Kane, PEARL-DGS and EVO V.2.0, seem to be more reliable and stable even in eyes with extreme ACD-LT combinations. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Entities:
Keywords:
anterior chamber; lens and zonules; optics and refraction; treatment surgery
Mesh：
Year: 2020
PMID： 33229347 DOI： 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Ophthalmol ISSN： 0007-1161 Impact factor: 4.638