Effect of Anterior Chamber Depth on Predictive Accuracy of Seven Intraocular Lens Formulas in Eyes with Axial Length Less Than 22 Mm

Overview

Journal Clin Ophthalmol

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2019 Nov 7

PMID 31692493

Citations 6

Authors

Ankur K Shrivastava

Pranayee Behera

Rajaram Kacher

Binod Kumar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether different anterior chamber depth (ACD) affects the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) less than 22 mm.

Methods: Eighty-five eyes of 85 patients with AL less than 22 mm were included in this retrospective study, which were divided into three groups: Group 1, ACD less than 2.4 mm; Group 2, ACD between 2.4 and 2.9 mm; and Group 3, ACD greater than 2.9 mm. Optical biometry with partial coherence interferometry was performed in all cases. The median absolute error (MedAE) was compared by Friedman's test, using the optimized lens constant, among seven formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T) in each group.

Results: Friedman's test showed no significant difference in MedAE among all formulas in Groups 1 and 3. However, as the Haigis formula had the highest MedAE and lowest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter, it is least preferred in Group 1. On the contrary, in Group 3 it fared the best, having the least MedAE and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter. In Group 2, Friedman's test gave significant difference, and post-hoc analysis showed statistical superiority of Haigis over the Holladay 1 (=0.02), Holladay 2 (=0.01), Hill-RBF (=0.04), and SRK/T (=0.02) formulas. However, there was no statistical difference between the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulas.

Conclusion: Considering the ACD in eyes with AL less than 22 mm, Haigis is the preferred formula while SRK/T proved to be the worst formula in Groups 2 and 3.

Citing Articles

Insight into small eyes: a practical description from phenotypes presentations to the management.

Niazi S, Dhubhghaill S, Doroodgar F, Gatzioufas Z, Dehghan M Int J Ophthalmol. 2024; 17(2):380-391.

PMID: 38371260 PMC: 10827624. DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2024.02.23.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack.

Kim N, Gim Y, Choi K, Suh W, Jun R, Han K BMC Ophthalmol. 2023; 23(1):482.

PMID: 38001418 PMC: 10675974. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5.

Anterior segment measurements and determinants of angle width with short, medium, and long axial lengths in a rural Chinese population.

Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Li S, He M, Wang N Heliyon. 2023; 9(3):e14174.

PMID: 36923839 PMC: 10009089. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14174.

Anterior Segment Characteristics and Risk Factors for Primary Angle Closure Disease With Long Axial Lengths: The Handan Eye Study.

Zhang Y, Zhang Q, Li S, He M, Li S, Wang N Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2023; 64(1):8.

PMID: 36633876 PMC: 9840442. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.64.1.8.

Response to comments on: Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths.

Khatib Z, Haldipurkar S, Shetty V, Dahake H, Nagvekar P, Kashelkar P Indian J Ophthalmol. 2021; 69(7):1977.

PMID: 34146083 PMC: 8374767. DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_982_21.

References

Gokce S, Zeiter J, Weikert M, Koch D, Hill W, Wang L . Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43(7):892-897. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.004. View

Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B . Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000; 238(9):765-73. DOI: 10.1007/s004170000188. View

Jeong J, Song H, Lee J, Chuck R, Kwon J . The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017; 17(1):62. PMC: 5414130. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y. View

Yang S, Whang W, Joo C . Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula. PLoS One. 2017; 12(12):e0189868. PMC: 5734766. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189868. View

Rhiu S, Lee E, Kim T, Lee H, Kim C . Power prediction for one-piece and three-piece intraocular lens implantation after cataract surgery in patients with chronic angle-closure glaucoma: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012; 90(8):e580-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02499.x. View

Landers J, Goggin M . Comparison of refractive outcomes using immersion ultrasound biometry and IOLMaster biometry. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009; 37(6):566-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02091.x. View

Hoffer K, Aramberri J, Haigis W, Olsen T, Savini G, Shammas H . Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160(3):403-405.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.05.029. View

Olsen T . Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007; 85(5):472-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00879.x. View

Hoffer K . The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19(6):700-12. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80338-0. View

10.

Eom Y, Kang S, Song J, Kim Y, Kim H . Comparison of Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae for intraocular lens power calculation according to the anterior chamber depth in short eyes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 157(4):818-824.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.017. View

11.

Melles R, Holladay J, Chang W . Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas. Ophthalmology. 2017; 125(2):169-178. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027. View

12.

Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright N, Sparrow J, Johnston R . Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 37(1):63-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.032. View

13.

Cao K, Sit M, Braga-Mele R . Primary piggyback implantation of 3 intraocular lenses in nanophthalmos. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33(4):727-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.11.028. View

14.

Kane J, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C . Accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens power selection. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43(3):333-339. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.021. View

15.

Kane J, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C . Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: Comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016; 42(10):1490-1500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.021. View

16.

Holladay J, Prager T, Chandler T, Musgrove K, Lewis J, RUIZ R . A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988; 14(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(88)80059-2. View

17.

Hoffer K . Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26(8):1233-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(00)00376-x. View

18.

Savini G, Hoffer K, Schiano-Lomoriello D . Agreement between lens thickness measurements by ultrasound immersion biometry and optical biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018; 44(12):1463-1468. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.07.057. View

19.

MacLaren R, Natkunarajah M, Riaz Y, Bourne R, Restori M, Allan B . Biometry and formula accuracy with intraocular lenses used for cataract surgery in extreme hyperopia. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143(6):920-931. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.02.043. View

20.

Lee A, Qazi M, Pepose J . Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007; 19(1):13-7. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f1c5ad. View