23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Update on Intraocular Lens Formulas and Calculations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Investigators, scientists, and physicians continue to develop new methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation to improve the refractive accuracy after cataract surgery. To gain more accurate prediction of IOL power, vergence lens formulas have incorporated additional biometric variables, such as anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, white-to-white measurement, and even age in some algorithms. Newer formulas diverge from their classic regression and vergence-based predecessors and increasingly utilize techniques such as exact ray-tracing data, more modern regression models, and artificial intelligence. This review provides an update on recent literature comparing the commonly used third- and fourth-generation IOL formulas with newer generation formulas. Refractive outcomes with newer formulas are increasingly more and more accurate, so it is important for ophthalmologists to be aware of the various options for choosing IOL power. Historically, refractive outcomes have been especially unpredictable in patients with unusual biometry, corneal ectasia, a history of refractive surgery, and in pediatric patients. Refractive outcomes in these patient populations are improving. Improved biometry technology is also allowing for improved refractive outcomes and surgery planning convenience with the availability of newer formulas on various biometry platforms. It is crucial for surgeons to understand and utilize the most accurate formulas for their patients to provide the highest quality of care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas.

          A new formula, the Hoffer Q, was developed to predict the pseudophakic anterior chamber depth (ACD) for theoretic intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas. It relies on a personalized ACD, axial length, and corneal curvature. In 180 eyes, the Q formula proved more accurate than those using a constant ACD (P < .0001) and equal (P = .63) to those using the actual postoperative measured ACD (which is not possible clinically). In 450 eyes of one style IOL implanted by one surgeon, the Hoffer Q formula was equal to the Holladay (P = .65) and SRK/T (P = .63) and more accurate than the SRK (P < .0001) and SRK II (P = .004) regression formulas using optimized personalization constants. The Hoffer Q formula may be clinically more accurate than the Holladay and SRK/T formulas in eyes shorter than 22.0 mm. Even the original nonpersonalized constant ACD Hoffer formula compared with SRK I (using the most valid possible optimized personal A-constant) has a better mean absolute error (0.56 versus 0.59) and a significantly better range of IOL prediction error (3.44 diopters [D] versus 7.31 D). The range of error of the Hoffer Q formula (3.59 D) was half that of SRK I (7.31 D). The highest IOL power errors in the 450 eyes were in the SRK II (3.14 D) and SRK I (6.14 D); the power error was 2.08 D using the Hoffer Q formula. The series using overall personalized ACD was more accurate than using an axial length subgroup personalized ACD in each axial length subgroup. The results strongly support replacing regression formulas with third-generation personalized theoretic formulas and carefully evaluating the Holladay, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

            To evaluate the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using 2 optical biometers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500

              Purpose To compare the measurements and failure rates obtained with a new swept source optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based biometry to IOLMaster 500. Setting Eye Clinic, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Design Observational cross-sectional study and evaluation of a new diagnostic technology. Methods 188 eyes of 101 subjects were included in the study. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power (K1 and K2) and the measurement failure rate with the new Zeiss IOLMaster 700 were compared with those obtained with the IOLMaster 500. The results were evaluated using Bland–Altman analyses. The differences between both methods were assessed using the paired samples t test, and their correlation was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mean age was 68.32±12.71 years and the male/female ratio was 29/72. The agreements between two devices were outstanding regarding AL (ICC=1.0), ACD (ICC=0.920), K1 (ICC=0.992) and K2 (ICC=0.989) values. IOLMaster 700 was able to measure ACD AL, K1 and K2 in all eyes within high-quality SD limits of the manufacturer. IOLMaster 500 was able to measure ACD in 175 eyes, whereas measurements were not possible in the remaining 13 eyes. AL measurements were not possible for 17 eyes with IOLMaster 500. Nine of these eyes had posterior subcapsular cataracts and eight had dense nuclear cataracts. Conclusions Although the agreement between the two devices was excellent, the IOLMaster 700 was more effective in obtaining biometric measurements in eyes with posterior subcapsular and dense nuclear cataracts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)
                Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila)
                AP9
                Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
                Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
                2162-0989
                May-Jun 2020
                03 June 2020
                : 9
                : 3
                : 186-193
                Affiliations
                John F Hardesty MD Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis MO
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Linda M. Tsai, John F Hardesty MD Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8096, St. Louis, MO 63110. E-mail: tsai@ 123456wustl.edu .
                Article
                APJO-2020-64
                10.1097/APO.0000000000000293
                7299214
                32501896
                5d5d4204-80c1-4036-a02a-c2a0a25a9e8b
                Copyright © 2020 Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History
                : 03 March 2020
                : 04 April 2020
                Categories
                Review Article
                T002
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                artificial intelligence,biometry,ectasia,ray tracing,vergence formulas

                Comments

                Comment on this article