Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant.
Malaescu, Monica; Stanca, Horia T; Tabacaru, Bogdana; Stanila, Adriana; Stanca, Simona; Danielescu, Ciprian.
Affiliation
  • Malaescu M; Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, 'Lucian Blaga' University, 550159 Sibiu, Romania.
  • Stanca HT; Department of Ophthalmology, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
  • Tabacaru B; Department of Ophthalmology, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
  • Stanila A; Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, 'Lucian Blaga' University, 550159 Sibiu, Romania.
  • Stanca S; Department of Pediatrics, 'Carol Davila' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050474 Bucharest, Romania.
  • Danielescu C; Department of Ophthalmology, 'Grigore T. Popa' University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 700115 Iasi, Romania.
Exp Ther Med ; 20(3): 2536-2543, 2020 Sep.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32765746
ABSTRACT
Accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II were compared in prediction of postoperative refraction for multifocal and implants using a single optical biometry device. The authors included 88 refractive lens exchange and cataract surgeries, with AcrySof IQ PanOptix implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). All eyes were divided into three groups based on axial length (AL), group 1 <22 mm (14 eyes), group 2 22-24.5 mm (68 eyes) and group 3 >24.5 mm (6 eyes). The refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated for 5 different formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. For eyes with the AL between 22 mm and 24.5 mm the greatest percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.25 D was 32.4% for Haigis formula, followed by Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 with 29.4%. The percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D was 100% only for Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1, 94.1% for SRK/T and 91.2% for Haigis and Hoffer Q. The first and third group with AL <22 and >24.5 mm were too small to have statistical significance due to the reluctancy to use multifocal IOLs on extreme ALs. ANOVA test showed no statistical difference (P=0.166) between the RPEs measured for each formula in this cohort. This study showed no statistical difference between formulas for this trifocal lens implant. There was a tendency for the RPE to be within ±0.25 D for most of the eyes with the Haigis formula, and within ±0.50 D for all the eyes with the Barrett Universal II formula in the group with the AL between 22 and 24.5 mm.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Exp Ther Med Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Exp Ther Med Year: 2020 Document type: Article Affiliation country:
...