Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry A Review

被引:84
作者
Kane, Jack X.
Chang, David F.
机构
[1] Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne
[2] University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
关键词
PARTIAL-COHERENCE INTERFEROMETRY; ANTERIOR-CHAMBER DEPTH; 2 OPTICAL BIOMETERS; AXIAL LENGTH MEASUREMENT; WAVE-FRONT ABERROMETRY; SWEPT-SOURCE OCT; CATARACT-SURGERY; PREOPERATIVE BIOMETRY; HOFFER-Q; TOMOGRAPHY BIOMETER;
D O I
10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.08.010
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
The refractive outcome of cataract surgery is influenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devices used to measure the eye (including intraoperative aberrometry [IA]). This review aimed to cover the breadth of literature over the previous 10 years, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is the most accurate? (2) What biometry devices are available, do the measurements they obtain differ from one another, and will this cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection? and (3) Does IA improve refractive outcomes? A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database for articles on each of these topics that identified 1313 articles, of which 166 were included in the review. For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accurate formula over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum and in both the short eye (AL, <= 22.0 mm) and long eye (AL, >= 26.0 mm) subgroups. Other formulas that performedwell in the short-eye subgroup were the Olsen (4-factor), Haigis, and Hill-radial basis function (RBF) 1.0. In the long-eye group, the other formulas that performed well included the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen (4-factor), or Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment. All biometry devices delivered highly reproducible measurements, and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric variables between devices. The differences seen resulted in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection. The main difference found between devices was the ability to measure successfully through dense cataracts, with swept-source OCT-based machines performing better than partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry devices. Intraoperative aberrometry generally improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surgery when the BUII and Hill-RBF, Barrett toric calculator, or Barrett True-K formulas were not used. When they were used, IA did not result in better outcomes. (C) 2020 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
引用
收藏
页码:E94 / E114
页数:21
相关论文
共 174 条
  • [1] Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: Comparison of formulas and methods
    Abulafia, Adi
    Barrett, Graham D.
    Rotenberg, Michael
    Kleinmann, Guy
    Levy, Adi
    Reitblat, Olga
    Koch, Douglas D.
    Wang, Li
    Assia, Ehud I.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2015, 41 (03) : 548 - 556
  • [2] Effectiveness and agreement of 3 optical biometers in measuring axial length in the eyes of patients with mature cataracts
    Alejandra Henriquez, Maria
    Zuniga, Raul
    Camino, Maythe
    Camargo, Jorge
    Ruiz-Montenegro, Katia
    Izquierdo Jr, Luis
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2020, 46 (09) : 1222 - 1228
  • [3] Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry
    Aristodemou, Petros
    Cartwright, Nathaniel E. Knox
    Sparrow, John M.
    Johnston, Robert L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 37 (01) : 63 - 71
  • [4] Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer
    Arriola-Villalobos, P.
    Almendral-Gomez, J.
    Garzon, N.
    Ruiz-Medrano, J.
    Fernandez-Perez, C.
    Martinez-de-la-Casa, J. M.
    Diaz-Valle, D.
    [J]. EYE, 2017, 31 (03) : 437 - 442
  • [5] Barrett G, 2018, BARRETT UNIVERSAL 2
  • [6] Efficiency and measurements agreement between swept-source OCT and low-coherence interferometry biometry systems
    Calvo-Sanz, Jorge A.
    Portero-Benito, Alejandro
    Arias-Puente, Alfonso
    [J]. GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2018, 256 (03) : 559 - 566
  • [7] Comparison of IOL Power Calculation Methods and Intraoperative Wavefront Aberrometer in Eyes After Refractive Surgery
    Canto, Ana Paula
    Chhadva, Priyanka
    Cabot, Florence
    Galor, Anat
    Yoo, Sonia H.
    Vaddavalli, Pravin K.
    Culbertson, William W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 29 (07) : 484 - 489
  • [8] Accuracy of the Refractive Prediction Determined by Multiple Currently Available Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Small Eyes
    Carifi, Gianluca
    Aiello, Francesco
    Zygoura, Vasiliki
    Kopsachilis, Nikolaos
    Maurino, Vincenzo
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 159 (03) : 577 - 583
  • [9] Accuracy of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on artificial intelligence
    Carmona Gonzalez, David
    Palomino Bautista, Carlos
    [J]. EYE, 2021, 35 (02) : 517 - 522
  • [10] Repeatability and Agreement of a Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometer IOLMaster 700 Versus a Scheimpflug Imaging-Based Biometer AL-Scan in Cataract Patients
    Chan, Tommy C. Y.
    Wan, Kelvin H.
    Tang, Fang Yao
    Wang, Yu Meng
    Yu, Marco
    Cheung, Carol
    [J]. EYE & CONTACT LENS-SCIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2020, 46 (01): : 35 - 45