Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 61, Issue 7
June 2020
Volume 61, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2020
Comparison of Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for SN60WF versus ZCB00 Lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Noah Michael Hodson
    Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
  • Cynthia Chelsea Jiang
    Long School of Medicine, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
  • Daniel A Johnson
    Ophthalmology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
  • Ahmad Kheirkhah
    Ophthalmology, UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Noah Hodson, None; Cynthia Jiang, None; Daniel Johnson, None; Ahmad Kheirkhah, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2020, Vol.61, 595. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Noah Michael Hodson, Cynthia Chelsea Jiang, Daniel A Johnson, Ahmad Kheirkhah; Comparison of Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for SN60WF versus ZCB00 Lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2020;61(7):595.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : Although accuracy of different formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation has been extensively studied before, there are limited data on whether type of IOL has any effect on this accuracy. Thus, in this study we compared the accuracy of IOL power formulas for two different monofocal aspheric lenses (AcrySof SN60WF, Alcon and Tecnis ZCB00, Abbott Medical Optics).

Methods : A retrospective study was performed on 373 eyes implanted with SN60WF lens and 184 eyes implanted with ZCB00 lens during uncomplicated cataract surgery. Only one eye of each patient was included. Patients with previous corneal injuries or surgeries, including refractive surgery, were excluded. The predicted results of 5 different formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, and Haigis) were compared to patients’ refraction at 1-3 months postoperatively. Accuracy of these formulas was compared between SN60WF and ZCB00 lenses for different axial lengths: <22.5mm (short), 22.5-25.5mm (medium), and >25.5mm (long). The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D from the predicted refraction (%±0.5 D) was compared between the two IOL’s.

Results : In patients with medium axial length, there were no significant differences in %±0.5 D between SN60WF and ZCB00 lenses for different formulas. However, in patients with short or long axial lengths, the %±0.5 D was significantly lower in the ZCB00 group compared with the SN60WF group (all P<0.05). Although in the SN60WF group there were no statistically significant differences in %±0.5 D among different axial lengths for each formula, for ZCB00 lenses %±0.5 D was significantly lower for those with short or long axial lengths compared with medium axial length. For both lenses, Barrett Universal II formula had significantly higher %±0.5 D compared with other formulas for all axial lengths (Table 1).

Conclusions : Type of IOL can affect the accuracy of IOL power formulas for eyes with short or long axial lengths. In such eyes, these formulas are more accurate for SN60WF lens compared with ZCB00 lens.

This is a 2020 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.

 

Table 1. Percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of the predicted refraction for SN60WF and ZCB00 lenses for different formulas.

Table 1. Percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of the predicted refraction for SN60WF and ZCB00 lenses for different formulas.

×
×

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.

×