Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas

被引:198
|
作者
Cooke, David L. [1 ,2 ]
Cooke, Timothy L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Great Lakes Eye Care, 2848 Niles Rd, St Joseph, MI 49085 USA
[2] Michigan State Univ, Coll Osteopath Med, Dept Neurol & Ophthalmol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
来源
关键词
HOFFER-Q FORMULA; PREDICTION ACCURACY; AXIAL LENGTHS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.029
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using 2 optical biometers. SETTING: Private practice, Saint Joseph, Michigan, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: Nine IOL power formula predictions with observed refractions after cataract surgery were compared using 1 IOL platform. The performance of each formula was ranked for accuracy by machine and by axial length (AL). The Olsen was further divided by a preinstalled version (Olsen(OLCR)) and a purchased version (Olsen(Standalone)). The Holladay 2 was divided by whether a refraction was entered (Holladay 2(PreSurgRef)) or not (Holladay 2(NoRef)). The OLCR device used in the study was the Lenstar L5 900 and the PCI device, the IOLMaster. RESULTS: The formulas were ranked by the standard deviation of the prediction error (optical low coherence reflectometry [OLCR], partial coherence interferometry [PCI]) as follows: Olsen(Standalone) (0.361, 0.446), Barrett Universal II (0.365, 0.387), Olsen(OLCR) (0.378, not applicable), Haigis (0.393, 0.401), T2 (0.397, 0.404), Super Formula (0.403, 0.410), Holladay 2(NoRef) (0.404, 0.417), Holladay 1 (0.408, 0.414), Holladay 2(PreSurgRef) (0.423, 0.432), Hoffer Q (0.428, 0.432), and SRK/T (0.433, 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The formulas gave different results depending on which machine measurements were used. The Olsen formula was the most accurate with OLCR measurements, significantly better than the best formula with PCI measurements. The Olsen was better, regardless of AL. If only PCI measurements (without lens thickness) were available, the Barrett Universal II performed the best and the Olsen formula performed the worst. The preinstalled version of Olsen was not as good as the standalone version. The Holladay 2 formula performed better when the preoperative refraction was excluded.
引用
收藏
页码:1157 / 1164
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of 9 modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas for a quadrifocal intraocular lens
    Shajari, Mehdi
    Kolb, Carolin M.
    Petermann, Kerstin
    Boehm, Myriam
    Herzog, Michael
    de'Lorenzo, Nina
    Schoenbrunn, Sabrina
    Kohnen, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 44 (08): : 942 - 948
  • [2] The comparison of the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes
    Yildiz, Aydin
    JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2020, 70 (07) : 1173 - 1176
  • [3] Comparison of the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas
    Carmona-Gonzalez, David
    Castillo-Gomez, Alfredo
    Palomino-Bautista, Carlos
    Romero-Dominguez, Marta
    Gutierrez-Moreno, Maria Angeles
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 31 (05) : 2370 - 2376
  • [4] A Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in High Myopia
    Bernardes, Joao
    Raimundo, Miguel
    Lobo, Conceicao
    Murta, Joaquim Neto
    JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 37 (03) : 207 - +
  • [5] Comparison of 9 modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas for a quadrifocal intraocular lens (vol 44, pg 942, 2018)
    Shajari
    Kohnen
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 44 (11): : 1409 - 1409
  • [6] Advancements in intraocular lens power calculation formulas
    Chung, Jinkwon
    Bu, Jennifer J.
    Afshari, Natalie A.
    CURRENT OPINION IN OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2022, 33 (01) : 35 - 40
  • [7] Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens
    Rocha-de-Lossada, Carlos
    Colmenero-Reina, Elvira
    Flikier, David
    Castro-Alonso, Francisco-Javier
    Rodriguez-Raton, Alvaro
    Garcia-Madrona, Jose-Luis
    Peraza-Nieves, Jorge
    Sanchez-Gonzalez, Jose-Maria
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 31 (06) : 2981 - 2988
  • [8] Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes
    Li, Liangpin
    Yuan, Liyun
    Yang, Kun
    Wu, Yanan
    Alafati, Simayilijiang
    Hua, Xia
    Wang, Yan
    Yuan, Xiaoyong
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2023, 13 (01):
  • [9] Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes
    Liangpin Li
    Liyun Yuan
    Kun Yang
    Yanan Wu
    Simayilijiang Alafati
    Xia Hua
    Yan Wang
    Xiaoyong Yuan
    Scientific Reports, 13 (1)
  • [10] Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with axial myopia
    Liu, Jiewei
    Wang, Li
    Chai, Feiyan
    Han, Yu
    Qian, Suqin
    Koch, Douglas D.
    Weikert, Mitchell P.
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2019, 45 (06): : 725 - 731