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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kou, Jiaojiao, Chang, Pingjun, Lin, Lei, Li, Zhangliang, Fu, Yana, Zhao, Yun-e
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