Cargando…
Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages
PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the accuracy of five intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Holladay 2) for pediatric eyes in children of different ages. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients who received cataract surgery and IOL implan...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7403939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32802491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8709375 |
_version_ | 1783567040757366784 |
---|---|
author | Kou, Jiaojiao Chang, Pingjun Lin, Lei Li, Zhangliang Fu, Yana Zhao, Yun-e |
author_facet | Kou, Jiaojiao Chang, Pingjun Lin, Lei Li, Zhangliang Fu, Yana Zhao, Yun-e |
author_sort | Kou, Jiaojiao |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the accuracy of five intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Holladay 2) for pediatric eyes in children of different ages. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients who received cataract surgery and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were enrolled. We compared the calculation accuracy of 5 formulas at 1 month postoperatively and performed subgroup analysis with the patients divided into three groups according to their ages at the time of surgery as follows: group 1 (age ≤ 2 years, 35 eyes), group 2 (2 years < age < 5 years, 38 eyes), and group 3 (age > 5 years, 29 eyes). RESULTS: 75 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in this study. The Haigis formula got the smallest PE among all formulas in all three groups. With regard to APE, there were no statistical differences among the formulas except group 2, with the SRK/T formula a little smaller, the Holladay 2 formula a little larger in group 1, and the Haigis formula a little smaller in group 3. In group 2, the Haigis formula had the lowest APE (0.87 ± 0.61 D), while the Holladay 2 formula had the largest (1.71 ± 1.20 D, p < 0.001), followed by the Holladay 1 formula (1.51 ± 1.07 D, p=0.002). On comparing the percentage of APE within 0.5 D and 1.0 D obtained with 5 formulas in each group, there were no statistical differences. The SRK/T formula and the Holladay 1 formula showed the highest percentage (40.00% and 60.00%) in group 1. While the Haigis formula got the highest percentage in less than 0.5 D (34.21%) and less than 1 D (60.53%) in group 2. In group 3, the Holladay 2 formula and the Haigis formula got the highest percentage less than 0.5 D (58.62%) and less than 1 D (79.31%). The multiple linear regression indicated that the age at the time of surgery was a significant factor affecting the accuracy of APE; after removing the age, AL was the only factor that affected the accuracy of APE. CONCLUSION: The SRK/T and the Holladay 1 formulas were relatively accurate in patients younger than 2 years old, while the Haigis formula performed better in patients older than 2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7403939 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74039392020-08-14 Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages Kou, Jiaojiao Chang, Pingjun Lin, Lei Li, Zhangliang Fu, Yana Zhao, Yun-e J Ophthalmol Research Article PURPOSE: This study aims to compare the accuracy of five intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Holladay 2) for pediatric eyes in children of different ages. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients who received cataract surgery and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were enrolled. We compared the calculation accuracy of 5 formulas at 1 month postoperatively and performed subgroup analysis with the patients divided into three groups according to their ages at the time of surgery as follows: group 1 (age ≤ 2 years, 35 eyes), group 2 (2 years < age < 5 years, 38 eyes), and group 3 (age > 5 years, 29 eyes). RESULTS: 75 patients (102 eyes) were enrolled in this study. The Haigis formula got the smallest PE among all formulas in all three groups. With regard to APE, there were no statistical differences among the formulas except group 2, with the SRK/T formula a little smaller, the Holladay 2 formula a little larger in group 1, and the Haigis formula a little smaller in group 3. In group 2, the Haigis formula had the lowest APE (0.87 ± 0.61 D), while the Holladay 2 formula had the largest (1.71 ± 1.20 D, p < 0.001), followed by the Holladay 1 formula (1.51 ± 1.07 D, p=0.002). On comparing the percentage of APE within 0.5 D and 1.0 D obtained with 5 formulas in each group, there were no statistical differences. The SRK/T formula and the Holladay 1 formula showed the highest percentage (40.00% and 60.00%) in group 1. While the Haigis formula got the highest percentage in less than 0.5 D (34.21%) and less than 1 D (60.53%) in group 2. In group 3, the Holladay 2 formula and the Haigis formula got the highest percentage less than 0.5 D (58.62%) and less than 1 D (79.31%). The multiple linear regression indicated that the age at the time of surgery was a significant factor affecting the accuracy of APE; after removing the age, AL was the only factor that affected the accuracy of APE. CONCLUSION: The SRK/T and the Holladay 1 formulas were relatively accurate in patients younger than 2 years old, while the Haigis formula performed better in patients older than 2. Hindawi 2020-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7403939/ /pubmed/32802491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8709375 Text en Copyright © 2020 Jiaojiao Kou et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kou, Jiaojiao Chang, Pingjun Lin, Lei Li, Zhangliang Fu, Yana Zhao, Yun-e Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title | Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title_full | Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title_short | Comparison of the Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation Formulas for Pediatric Eyes in Children of Different Ages |
title_sort | comparison of the accuracy of iol power calculation formulas for pediatric eyes in children of different ages |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7403939/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32802491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8709375 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT koujiaojiao comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages AT changpingjun comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages AT linlei comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages AT lizhangliang comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages AT fuyana comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages AT zhaoyune comparisonoftheaccuracyofiolpowercalculationformulasforpediatriceyesinchildrenofdifferentages |