Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison
Do you wish to request the book?
Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison
2022
Overview
Background/AimsTo investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) on 9 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas accuracy, in patients with normal axial lengths.MethodsRetrospective case series, including patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with insertion of a single IOL model, divided into three groups according to preoperative ACD. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups, according to the LT. Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error was calculated for Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF V.2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, PEARL-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Mean prediction error, mean and median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D and ±1.00D were also calculated.ResultsThe study included 695 eyes from 695 patients. For ACD ≤3.0 mm and ≥3.5 mm, mean prediction error of SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 was significantly different from 0 (p<0.05). PEARL-DGS, Kane, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II were more accurate than the Hoffer Q in ACD ≤3.0 mm (p<0.05). Kane, PEARL-DGS, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II revealed the lowest variance of mean and MedAE by ACD and LT subgroup. Haigis and Hill-RBF V.2.0 were significantly influenced by LT, independently of the ACD, with a myopic shift with thin lenses and a hyperopic shift with thick lenses (p<0.05).ConclusionNew generation formulas, particularly Kane, PEARL-DGS and EVO V.2.0, seem to be more reliable and stable even in eyes with extreme ACD-LT combinations.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
