September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Comparison of six IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with axial length ≤22 mm
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Li Wang
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Sabite Gokce
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
  • John Zeiter
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Mitchell P Weikert
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Warren Hill
    East Valley Ophthalmology, Mesa, Arizona, United States
  • Douglas D Koch
    Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Li Wang, None; Sabite Gokce, None; John Zeiter, None; Mitchell Weikert, None; Warren Hill, None; Douglas Koch, Abbott Medical Optics (C), Alco (C), Revision Optics (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Research to Prevent Blindness
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 919. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Li Wang, Sabite Gokce, John Zeiter, Mitchell P Weikert, Warren Hill, Douglas D Koch; Comparison of six IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with axial length ≤22 mm. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):919.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the accuracy of refractive prediction of six IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) ≤22 mm.

Methods : We evaluated six IOL power calculation formulas: 4 standard formulas (Holladay 2, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) and 2 newer formulas (Olsen and Barrett). Consecutive cases that had cataract surgery from January 2011 to November 2015 with AL ≤22 mm were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) biometric measurements with Lenstar (Haag-Streit AG), 2) no previous ocular surgery or intraoperative or postoperative complications, and 3) postoperative best-spectacle corrected visual acuity of 20/30 or better at 3 weeks or longer. The refractive prediction error (RPE) was calculated as the difference between the actual refractive outcome postoperatively and the predicted refraction using each formula. Lens constants in each formula were optimized. The median absolute refractive prediction error was calculated.

Results : In 77 eyes, for Holladay 2, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Olsen and Barrett, respectively, the mean RPE values were -0.31 ± 0.47 D, -0.03 ± 0.50 D, -0.21 ± 0.49 D, -0.09 ± 0.54 D, -0.03 ± 0.49 D, and +0.28 ± 0.50 D; the mean RPEs with Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, and Olsen were significantly different from zero (all P<0.05). The median RPE values were 0.38 D, 0.38 D, 0.39 D, 0.41 D, 0.39 D, and 0.41 D, respectively, there were no significant differences among formulas (P>0.05); % of eyes within 0.5 D and 1.0 D of RPE were 71% and 97%, 73% and 97%, 68% and 99%, 64% and 90%, 70% and 95%, and 64% and 95%, respectively, there were no significant differences among formulas (P>0.05).

Conclusions : There were no significant differences among the standard and newer formulas in short eyes. Further studies exploring factors contributing to refractive prediction errors are desirable.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×