Top: absolute and relative numbers for how often the two new proposed aberrometry-derived formulae, the LiHue and LiHue/AL, would have calculated a different IOL from the one implanted, how the refractive outcome would have been affected and how accurately astigmatism was measured during aphakia as compared with postoperative refraction at 3 months. Bottom: mean and median prediction errors for three published aphakia formulae (derived from autorefractive retinoscopy), LiHue/AL and LiHue as compared with conventional biometry with the Haigis formula Top
| LiHue calculated different IOL than implanted IOL by | N | Per cent | LiHue IOL would have had better/worse outcome than implanted IOL by | Nbetter/ Nworse | %better |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <−1 D | 27 | 42.2 | <−1 D | 1/10 | 9.1 |
| −1 to −0.5 D | 4 | 6.3 | −1 to −0.5 D | 1/9 | 10.0 |
| −0.5 to 0 D | 5 | 7.8 | −0.5 to 0 D | 1/6 | 14.3 |
| 0 to +0.5 D | 3 | 4.7 | 0 to +0.5 D | 8/7 | 53.3 |
| +0.5 to +1 D | 7 | 10.9 | +0.5 to +1 D | 7/4 | 63.6 |
| >+1 D | 18 | 28.1 | > +1 D | 1/9 | 10.0 |
| Totals | 64 | 100.0 | Totals | 19/45 | 29.7 |
| LiHue/AL calculated different IOL than implanted IOL by | N | Per cent | LiHue/AL IOL would have had better/worse outcome than implanted IOL by | Nbetter/ Nworse | %better |
| <−1 D | 23 | 35.9 | <−1 D | 0/7 | 0.0 |
| −1 to −0.5 D | 7 | 10.9 | −1 to −0.5 D | 2/7 | 22.2 |
| −0.5 to 0 D | 8 | 12.5 | −0.5 to 0 D | 1/8 | 11.1 |
| 0 to +0.5 D | 10 | 15.6 | 0 to +0.5 D | 10/12 | 45.5 |
| +0.5 to +1 D | 4 | 6.3 | +0.5 to +1 D | 7/3 | 70.0 |
| >+1 D | 12 | 18.8 | >+1 D | 2/5 | 28.6 |
| Totals | 64 | 100.0 | Totals | 22/42 | 34.4 |
| IWA cylinder power different from postop refraction by | N | Per cent | IWA cylinder axis different from postop refraction by | N | Per cent |
| 0 to −0.25 D | 24 | 42.1 | 0–10° | 4 | 7.0 |
| −0.25 to −0.5 D | 4 | 7.0 | 10–20° | 7 | 12.3 |
| −0.5 to −0.75 D | 7 | 12.3 | 20–30° | 7 | 12.3 |
| −0.75 to −1 D | 5 | 8.8 | >30° | 39 | 68.4 |
| <−1 D | 17 | 29.8 | |||
| Totals | 57 | 100.0 | Totals | 57 | 100.0 |
| Bottom | |||||
| Prediction error | LiHue/AL | LiHue | Ianchulev7 | Leccisotti8 | Wong9 | Haigis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Med AE (D) (95% CI)* | 0.65 (0.45 to 0.89)LiHuILWH | 0.92 (0.66 to 1.25) | 3.86 (3.42 to 4.73) | 3.85 (3.17 to 4.33) | 3.32 (2.96 to 4.05) | 0.44 (0.13 to 0.75) |
| MAE±SD (D)† | 0.86±0.74LiHuILWH | 1.15±0.94 | 4.13±2.03 | 3.96±2.03 | 3.57±1.91 | 0.55±0.58 |
| % within ±0.5 DZ | 41ILW | 25 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 56 |
| % within ±0.75 DZ | 55ILW | 45 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 67 |
| % within ±1.0 DZ | 70ILWH | 53 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 83 |
*Significant at 0.05 level against formulae indicated by superscript capital letters. Two-sided binomial test of proportions.
†Significant at 0.05 level against formulae indicated by superscript capital letters. Paired t test.
Z significant at 0.05 level against formulae indicated by superscript. Z-test of proportions.
Formula abbreviations in superscript: LiHu, LiHue; I, Ianchulev; L, Leccisotti; W, Wong; H, Haigis.
D, dioptres; IOL, intraocular lens; IWA, intraoperative wavefront aberrometry; MAE, mean absolute error; MedAE, median absolute error.