Cargando…

Effect of Anterior Chamber Depth on the Choice of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula in Patients with Normal Axial Length

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of  Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff II (SRK II) and 3(rd) and 4(th) generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and to compare the effect of different anterior chamber depths among the IOL formulas in cataract patients with normal axial length (AL; 22.0-24.5 millimeters, mm)....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miraftab, Mohammad, Hashemi, Hassan, Fotouhi, Akbar, Khabazkhoob, Mehdi, Rezvan, Farhad, Asgari, Soheila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25371635
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.142266
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of  Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff II (SRK II) and 3(rd) and 4(th) generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and to compare the effect of different anterior chamber depths among the IOL formulas in cataract patients with normal axial length (AL; 22.0-24.5 millimeters, mm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients with normal AL who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK II and 3(rd) generation IOL formulas (Hoffer Q, SRK T, Holladay 1) were compared to the 4(th) generation Haigis formula. For analysis, preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was divided into three subgroups: ≤3, 3-3.5, and ≥ 3.5 mm. The mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) of each formula was compared for each subgroup against the total. The difference between the ME and MAE of the formulas were compared for each ACD subgroup. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The study sample was comprised of 309 eyes. The MAE were 0.56 D, 0.52 D, 0.51 D, 0.50 D, and 0.50 D with Haigis, Hoffer Q, SRK T, Holladay 1, and SRK II formulas, respectively. The Haigis formula was a significantly weaker predictor than the SRK T (P < 0.001) and Holladay 1 (P = 0.035) formulas. The ME with Haigis formula was -0.23 D which changed to -0.06 D with ACD ≥ 3.5 mm (P = 0.002). The ME was -0.24 D with SRK II and changed to -0.09D with ACD ≤ 3 mm (P = 0.004). There was no statistically significant difference between Hoffer Q, SRK T, and Holladay formulas 1 in ACD subgroups (P > 0.05, all comparisons). CONCLUSION: The SRK II formula can predict refraction in patients with normal AL and ACD less than 3 mm with less error and is preferred over other formulas. The Haigis formula is the preferred choice in patients with a normal AL and ACD longer than 3.5 mm. The prediction accuracy of Hoffer Q, SRK T, and Holladay 1 is comparable in normal AL.