Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wang, Qiwei; Jiang, Wu; Lin, Tiao; Zhu, Yi; Chen, Chuan; Lin, Haotian; Chen, Weirong.
Afiliação
  • Wang Q; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Jiang W; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
  • Lin T; The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Zhu Y; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Chen C; Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
  • Lin H; State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  • Chen W; Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA.
Clin Exp Ophthalmol ; 46(7): 738-749, 2018 09.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29498180
ABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE Visual outcome after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in long eyes is considerably affected by IOL power calculation. Various formulas have been designed to achieve an accurate IOL power prediction. However, controversy about the accuracy remains.

BACKGROUND:

To evaluate the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in long eyes.

DESIGN:

Meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS:

Patients with ocular axial length (AL) over 24.5 mm.

METHODS:

A comprehensive search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were conducted by September, 2017. The weighted mean differences of mean absolute errors (MAE) and the odds ratio of percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of prediction error among formulas were analysed. MAIN OUTCOMES

MEASURES:

Between-group differences of MAE among formulas.

RESULTS:

Eleven observational studies, involving 4047 eyes, were enrolled. Six formulas for IOL power calculation were compared Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Holladay 2, SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1. The MAE of Barrett Universal II was statistically lower than that of Holladay 2 (mean difference, MD = -0.04D, P = 0.0002), SRK/T (MD = -0.05D, P < 0.00001), Hoffer Q (MD = -0.07D, P < 0.00001) and Holladay 1 (MD = -0.07D, P < 0.00001). Barrett Universal II yielded significantly higher percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of the prediction error than the other formulas. The heterogeneity was minimized through dividing eyes into two groups by the AL of 26 mm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study demonstrates the superiority of Barrett Universal II over Holladay 2, SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 in predicting IOL power in long eyes.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Refração Ocular / Acuidade Visual / Biometria / Óptica e Fotônica / Comprimento Axial do Olho / Lentes Intraoculares / Miopia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Refração Ocular / Acuidade Visual / Biometria / Óptica e Fotônica / Comprimento Axial do Olho / Lentes Intraoculares / Miopia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article