Comparison of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Installed in a Partial Coherence Interferometer

Dong Yoon Kim; Myoung Joon Kim; Jae Yong Kim; Hungwon Tchah

doi:10.3341/jkos.2009.50.4.523

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.50(4) > 1008519

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Kim, Kim, and Tchah: Comparison of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Installed in a Partial Coherence Interferometer

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2009;50(4):523-528.

Published online: 7 September 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2009.50.4.523

Comparison of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Installed in a Partial Coherence Interferometer

Dong Yoon Kim, MD, Myoung Joon Kim, MD, PhD, Jae Yong Kim, MD, PhD, Hungwon Tchah, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Myoung Joon Kim, MD, PhD, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center Hospital #388‐1 Pungnap 2-dong, Songpa‐gu, Seoul 138‐736, Korea Tel: 82‐2‐3010‐3975, Fax: 82‐2‐470‐6440, E-mail: Joon@amc.seoul.kr

Received 1 August 2008 Accepted 25 November 2008

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of various formulas installed in IOLMaster software which uses partial coherence interferometry for axial length measurement.

Methods

This retrospective comparative study included 81 eyes of consecutive patients who had uneventful cataract surgery with implantation of Acrysof single piece (SA60AT) IOL. Axial length was measured with IOLMaster and IOL power was calculated using various formulas, including SRK II, SRK/T, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Hoffer Q. Subjects were stratified by axial length into Groups A (axial length < 23.50 mm), B (23.50 mm ≤ axial length < 25.00 mm), and C (axial length ≥ 25.00 mm). Target refractions of the five formulas were compared to the postoperative manifest refraction at 1 month.

Results

The five formulas showed no difference in predicting postoperative refractive errors among all of the groups.

Conclusions

Five formulas installed in IOLMaster software provided equivalent predictions of postoperative refractive error regardless of axial length.

Go to :

Keywords: IOLMaster, Intraocular lens calculation formula

References

1. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 126:524–34.

2. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–9.

3. Findl O. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005; 16:61–4.

4. Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Sacu S, et al. Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:1950–5.

5. Zaldivar R, Shultz MC, Davidorf JM, Holladay JT. Intraocular lens power calculations in patients with extreme myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:668–74.

6. Lege BA, Haigis W. Laser interference biometry versus ultrasound biometry in certain clinical conditions. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004; 242:8–12.

7. Binkhorst RD. The accuracy of ultrasonic measurement of the axial length of the eye. Ophthalmic Surg. 1981; 12:363–5.

8. Schachar RA, Levy NS, Bonney RC. Accuracy of intraocular lens powers calculated from A-scan biometry with the Echo-Oculometer. Ophthalmic Surg. 1980; 11:856–8.

9. Hitzenberger CK. Optical measurement of the axial eye length by laser Doppler interferometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991; 32:616–24.

10. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Dual beam optical coherence tomography: signal identification for ophthalmologic diagnosis. J Biomed Opt. 1998; 3:55–65.

11. Rose LT, Moshegov CN. Comparison of the Zeiss IOLMaster and applanation A– scan ultrasound: biometry for intraocular lens calculation. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2003; 31:121–4.

12. Connors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:235–8.

13. Eleftheriadis H. IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003; 87:960–3.

14. Hwang JS, Lee JH. Comparison of The IOLMaster and A-scan Ultrasound: Results of 96 Consecutive Cases. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007; 48:27–32.

15. Song BY, Yang KJ, Yoon KC. Accuracy of Partial Coherence Interferometry in Intraocular Lens Power Calculation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:775–80.

16. Sanders DR, Retzlaff J, Kraff MC. Comparison of the SRK II formula and second generation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988; 14:136–41.

17. Hoffer KJ. The HofferQ formula: A comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:700–12.

18. Donoso R, Mura JJ, Lopez M, Papic A. Emmetropization at cataract surgery. Looking for the best IOL power calculation formula according to the eye length. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2003; 78:477–80.

19. Hoffer KJ. Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:1233–7.

20. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:861–7.

21. Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW. Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMaster and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:262–7.

Go to :

Table 1.

Characteristics of each group according to the axial length

Group	A^*	B^†	C^‡	Total
N	40	25	16	81
Sex (M/F)	9/31	12/13	7/9	28/53
Right/Left	24/16	13/12	9/7	46/35
Age (years)	68.4±8.7	63.2±17.7	58.7±8.3	64.9±12.7
Axial length (mm)	22.82±0.49	24.12±0.30	27.37±1.54	24.13±1.89
	(21.69–23.49)	(23.52–24.55)	(25.17–29.71)	(21.69–29.71)

^* A: Group A, axial length < 23.5 mm

^† B: Group B, axial length ≥ 23.5, < 25.0 mm

^‡ C: Group C, axial length ≥ 25.0 mm.

Table 2.

Comparison of various IOL power calculation formulas installed in IOLMaster^®

Group (Axial length, mm)	Eyes	Mean Absolute Difference, Predicted Vs Actual Postop SE^§ (Diopter)						p value^*
Group (Axial length, mm)	Eyes	SRK II	SRK/T	Holladay 1	Haigis	Hoffer Q	Total	p value^*
Group A (<23.5)	40							0.94
Mean± SD^∏		0.40±0.30	0.41±0.30	0.40±0.27	0.43±0.30	0.42±0.32	0.41±0.30^†
Range		0.00–1.15	0.01–1.44	0.04–1.15	0.00–0.97	0.03–1.15	0.00–1.44
Group B (≥23.5, <25.0)	25							0.80
Mean± SD		0.45±0.39	0.40±0.32	0.39±0.30	0.46±0.29	0.42±0.28	0.43±0.31^‡
Range		0.00–1.53	0.03–1.24	0.03–1.65	0.03–1.15	0.00–1.13	0.00–1.65
Group C (≥25.0)	16							0.70
Mean± SD		0.65±0.43	0.63±0.36	0.82±0.43	0.74±0.44	0.72±0.38	0.71±0.40
Range		0.13–1.58	0.07–1.32	0.11–1.43	0.10–1.68	0.13–1.35	0.07–1.68
Total	81							0.90
Mean± SD		0.47±0.38	0.45±0.33	0.48±0.36	0.50±0.35	0.48±0.34	0.48±0.35
Range		0.00–1.58	0.01–1.44	0.03–1.43	0.00–1.68	0.00–1.35	0.00–1.68

^* Kruskal‐Wallis test

^† Group A vs Group C: p=0.00 (Mann‐Whitney U test)

^‡ Group B vs Group C: p=0.00 (Mann‐Whitney U test)

^§ SE=spherical equivalent

^∏ SD=standard deviation.

Table 3.

Comparison of various IOL L power calculation form mulas installed in IOLMaster r^®

Group (Axial length, mm)	Formula	Eye within^*
Group (Axial length, mm)	Formula	0.50D	1.00D	1.50D	2.00D
Group A (<23.5)	SRK II	67.5%	97.5%	100%	100%
	SRK/T	65.0%	95.0%	100%	100%
	Holladay 1	70.0%	97.5%	100%	100%
	Haigis	65.0%	100%	100%	100%
	Hoffer Q	67.5%	92.5%	100%	100%
Group B (≥23.5, <25.0)	SRK II	72.0%	92.0%	96.0%	100%
	SRK/T	64.0%	92.0%	100%	100%
	Holladay 1	72.0%	96.0%	100%	100%
	Haigis	56.0%	96.0%	100%	100%
	Hoffer Q	68.0%	96.0%	100%	100%
Group C (≥25.0)	SRK II	43.8%	68.8%	93.8%	100%
	SRK/T	25.0%	87.5%	100%	100%
	Holladay 1	31.3%	50%	100%	100%
	Haigis	25.0%	81.3%	93.8%	100%
	Hoffer Q	37.5%	81.3%	100%	100%

^* Percentage of eyes within 0.50D, 1.00D, 1.50D, and 2.00D from intended refraction.

Table 4.

Comparison of various IOL power calculation formulas installed in IOLMaster^®

Group (Axial length, mm)	Formula	Over 0.50D Ｍyopia^*(≥0.50D)	Over 1.00D Myopia^†(≥1.00D)	Over 0.50D Hyperopia^‡(≥0.50D)	Over 1.00D Hyperopia^§(≥1.00D)
Group A (<23.5)	SRK II	17.5%	2.5%	17.5%	0%
	SRK/T	22.5%	5.0%	12.5%	0%
	Holladay 1	17.5%	2.5%	7.5%	0%
	Haigis	17.5%	0%	15%	0%
	Hoffer Q	25.0%	7.5%	7.5%	0%
Group B (≥23.5, <25.0)	SRK II	28%	8%	4.0%	0%
	SRK/T	20%	8%	16.0%	0%
	Holladay 1	20%	4%	12.0%	0%
	Haigis	16%	4%	28.0%	0%
	Hoffer Q	20%	4%	12.0%	0%
Group C (≥25.0)	SRK II	31.3%	25%	25.0%	6.3%
	SRK/T	18.8%	6.3%	56.3%	6.3%
	Holladay 1	6.3%	6.3%	62.5%	43.8%
	Haigis	12.5%	12.5%	62.5%	6.3%
	Hoffer Q	6.3%	6.3%	56.3%	12.5%

^* Percentage of eye which was myopic shift over 0.50D from intended refraction

^† Percentage of eye which was myopic shift over 1.00D from intended refraction

^‡ Percentage of eye which was hyperopic shift over 0.50D from intended refraction

^§ Percentage of eye which was hyperopic shift over 1.00D from intended refraction.

TOOLS

Similar articles