Article Text
PDF
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.
- anterior chamber
- lens and zonules
- optics and refraction
- treatment surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors DH-F: concept and design, data acquisition, data analysis, manuscript drafting, statistical analysis and final approval; MEL: concept and design, data acquisition and final approval; RS-P: concept and design, data acquisition and final approval; PG: concept and design, data analysis, manuscript drafting, statistical analysis, clinical revision and final approval; VM: concept and design, data analysis, clinical revision and final approval; JF: concept and design, clinical revision and final approval; NA: concept and design, data analysis, clinical revision, supervision, final approval.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institution ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request. Unidentified patients data (biometric measurements, implanted IOL power, postoperative refraction and prediction error by each formula) are available from DH-F, MD (cdiogo777@gmail.com)
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Linked Articles
- At a glance