Cargando…

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on which intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula provides the best refractive prediction in patients with inadequate capsular support whose anterior ocular anatomic structure differs from that of normal subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zhouyue, Lian, Zhangkai, Young, Charlotte Aimee, Zhao, Jing, Jin, Guangming, Zheng, Danying
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708951
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3290
_version_ 1783662659962404864
author Li, Zhouyue
Lian, Zhangkai
Young, Charlotte Aimee
Zhao, Jing
Jin, Guangming
Zheng, Danying
author_facet Li, Zhouyue
Lian, Zhangkai
Young, Charlotte Aimee
Zhao, Jing
Jin, Guangming
Zheng, Danying
author_sort Li, Zhouyue
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on which intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula provides the best refractive prediction in patients with inadequate capsular support whose anterior ocular anatomic structure differs from that of normal subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy and performance of IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II) in predicting postoperative refractive prediction error (PE) for this subgroup of patients. METHODS: A total of 110 eyes from 110 patients with insufficient capsular support who underwent scleral fixation of an IOL at the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from July 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Preoperative optical biometrics were measured with the IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The performance of each formula in predicting PE was compared, and the effect of keratometry and axial length (AL) on PE was evaluated for each formula using univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the included participants was 12.54±9.66 years. The Sanders, Retzlaff, and Manus/theoretical (SRK/T) (−0.25 D) and Holladay 1 (−0.28 D) formulas tended to have minimal postoperative PE compared to the Hoffer Q (−0.62 D), Haigis (−0.67 D), and Barrett Universal II (−0.62 D) formulas (P=0.005). All formulas individually resulted in <70% of eyes within ±1.00 D of the PE. Nevertheless, after constants were optimized, these formulas led to 7.3% to 13.6% of increase within ±1.00 D of the PE. Keratometry and AL were significantly associated with PE for each formula, but the relationship was weakest for SRK/T. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with insufficient capsular support, postoperative PE was minimal for the SRK/T formula, which suggested SRK/T to be the best choice, especially when the keratometry and AL of patients are extremely large or small.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7944297
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79442972021-03-10 Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support Li, Zhouyue Lian, Zhangkai Young, Charlotte Aimee Zhao, Jing Jin, Guangming Zheng, Danying Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on which intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula provides the best refractive prediction in patients with inadequate capsular support whose anterior ocular anatomic structure differs from that of normal subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy and performance of IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II) in predicting postoperative refractive prediction error (PE) for this subgroup of patients. METHODS: A total of 110 eyes from 110 patients with insufficient capsular support who underwent scleral fixation of an IOL at the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from July 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Preoperative optical biometrics were measured with the IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The performance of each formula in predicting PE was compared, and the effect of keratometry and axial length (AL) on PE was evaluated for each formula using univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the included participants was 12.54±9.66 years. The Sanders, Retzlaff, and Manus/theoretical (SRK/T) (−0.25 D) and Holladay 1 (−0.28 D) formulas tended to have minimal postoperative PE compared to the Hoffer Q (−0.62 D), Haigis (−0.67 D), and Barrett Universal II (−0.62 D) formulas (P=0.005). All formulas individually resulted in <70% of eyes within ±1.00 D of the PE. Nevertheless, after constants were optimized, these formulas led to 7.3% to 13.6% of increase within ±1.00 D of the PE. Keratometry and AL were significantly associated with PE for each formula, but the relationship was weakest for SRK/T. CONCLUSIONS: In eyes with insufficient capsular support, postoperative PE was minimal for the SRK/T formula, which suggested SRK/T to be the best choice, especially when the keratometry and AL of patients are extremely large or small. AME Publishing Company 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7944297/ /pubmed/33708951 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3290 Text en 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Li, Zhouyue
Lian, Zhangkai
Young, Charlotte Aimee
Zhao, Jing
Jin, Guangming
Zheng, Danying
Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title_full Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title_fullStr Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title_short Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
title_sort accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708951
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3290
work_keys_str_mv AT lizhouyue accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport
AT lianzhangkai accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport
AT youngcharlotteaimee accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport
AT zhaojing accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport
AT jinguangming accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport
AT zhengdanying accuracyofintraocularlenscalculationformulasforeyeswithinsufficientcapsularsupport