Comparison of refractive outcomes using Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry or IOLMaster 700 keratometry for IOL power calculation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Aksoy ◽  
Leyla Asena ◽  
Sirel Gür Güngör ◽  
Ali Küçüködük ◽  
Ahmet Akman
Keyword(s):  
Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Iolmaster 700

Comparison of the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212096203
Author(s):  
David Carmona-González ◽  
Alfredo Castillo-Gómez ◽  
Carlos Palomino-Bautista ◽  
Marta Romero-Domínguez ◽  
María Ángeles Gutiérrez-Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Case Series ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcome ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Iol Power

Purpose To compare the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK-T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, Ladas Super formula, EVO and Kane). Setting Private university hospital (QuironSalud, Madrid, Spain). Design Retrospective case series Methods Data were compiled from 481 eyes of 481 patients who had undergone uneventful cataract surgery with IOL insertion. Preoperative biometric measurements were made using an IOL Master® 700. Respective ULIB IOL constants ( http://ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.htm ) for each of 4 IOL models implanted were used to calculate the predictive refractive outcome for each formula. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome determined 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was mean absolute prediction error (MAE). The study sample was divided according to axial length (AL) into three groups of eyes: short (⩽22.00 mm), normal (22.00–25.00 mm) and long (⩾25.00 mm). Results The Barrett Universal II and Haigis formulas yielded the lowest MAEs over the entire AL range ( p < .01, except EVO) as well as in the long ( p < .01, all formulas) and normal ( p < .01, except Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen and LSF) eyes. In the short eyes, the lower MAEs were provided by Haigis and EVO ( p < .01 except Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay I). Conclusions Barrett Universal II was the most accurate for IOL power calculation in the normal and long eyes. For short eyes, the formulas Haigis and EVO seem best at predicting refractive outcomes.

Agreement of IOL power calculation between IOLMaster 700 and Anterion swept source optical coherence tomography-based biometers

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver A Pfaeffli ◽  
Adrian Weber ◽  
Kenneth J Hoffer ◽  
Giacomo Savini ◽  
Philipp B Baenninger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Optical Coherence Tomography ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Optical Coherence ◽  
Swept Source ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Iolmaster 700

Effective Ocular Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Turczynowska ◽  
Katarzyna Koźlik-Nowakowska ◽  
Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka ◽  
Andrzej Grzybowski ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Optical Instruments ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Ocular Biometry ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Clinical Measurements ◽  
Lens Power

Since the introduction of phacoemulsification, cataract surgery has evolved remarkably. The use of premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) (aspheric, toric, multifocal), refractive lens exchange and patients after refractive surgery procedures require extremely precise clinical measurements and IOL calculation formulas to achieve desired postoperative refraction. For many years, ultrasound biometry has been the standard for measurement of ocular parameters. The introduction of optical biometry (fast and non-invasive) has replaced ultrasound methods and is now considered as the clinical standard for ocular biometry. Recently, several modern optical instruments have been commercially launched and there are new methods available, including the empirical, analytical, numerical or combined methods to determine IOL power. The aim of this review is to present current techniques of ocular biometry and IOL power calculation formulas, which will contribute to achieve highly accurate refractive outcomes.

scholarly journals Comparison of aphakic refraction and biometry-based formulae for secondary in-the-bag and sulcus-implanted intraocular lens power estimation in children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping-Jun Chang ◽  
Zhangliang Li ◽  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Lei Lin ◽  
Jiaojiao Kou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Power Calculation ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
Iol Implantation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Hyperopic Shift ◽  
Lens Power ◽  
Almost All

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of refractive outcomes in children undergoing secondary in-the-bag or cilliary sulcus IOL implantation, using aphakic refraction (AR)-based formulae and biometry-based formulae. Methods: In this retrospective study, 39 eyes of the in-the-bag IOL group and the other 26 eyes of the sulcus-implanted IOL group. Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II formulae were employed depending on the biometric data, while Hug and Khan formulae were used based on preoperative aphakic refraction. The prediction error (PE) and the absolute value of predicted error (APE) were compared between the two groups and formulae. Results: In the in-the-bag IOL group, non-significant differences of APE were found among the 6 formulae, while the Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, SRK/T and SRK II all demonstrated a significant hyperopic shift of median PE value compared to the Hug formula and Holladay 1 and SRK II also showed a significant hyperopic shift of PE compared to the Khan . Higher percentages of eyes with PE less than 1 D were found using Hoffer Q and SRK/T. In the sulcus-implanted group, the Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and SRK/T had a significantly smaller median value of APE than the Hug and Khan formulae, and the SRK II had a significantly smaller median value of APE than the Hug formula, while Holladay 1 had the lowest value of APE. Higher percentages of eyes within PE less than 1 D were found using Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and SRK/T, while the highest was SRK/T. Significantly larger hyperopic shifts of median PE value using all the 6 formulae were found in eyes with sulcus-implanted IOL than with in-the-bag implanted IOL . In in-the-bag implanted IOL group, the Hug and Khan formulae had significantly smaller APE values when compared with the sulcus-implanted IOL group. Conclusions: whether IOL was in the bag or sulcus implantation, almost all the formulae showed hyperopic shift, SRK/T showed the best accuracy. Biometry-based formulae were superior to AR-based formulae in accuracy of IOL power calculation, especially when IOL was implanted in the sulcus. In-the-bag IOL implantation should always be with higher priorities, especially when using AR-based formulae in IOL power calculation.

scholarly journals Post Cataract Surgery Refractive Error in Myopic Patients Using SRK/T Versus Holladay 1 Formula for IOL Power Calculation

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidra Anwar, Atif Mansoor Ahmad, Irum Abbas, Zyeima Arif
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Refractive Error ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Group A ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B

Purpose: To compare post-operative mean refractive error with SandersRetzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK-T) and Holladay 1 formulae for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract patients with longer axial lengths. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Ophthalmology, Shaikh Zayed Hospital Lahore from 01 January 2017 01 January, 2018. Material and Methods: A total of 80 patients were selected from Ophthalmology Outdoor of Shaikh Zayed Hospital Lahore. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 40 each by lottery method. IOL power calculation was done in group A using SRK-T formula and in group B using Holladay1 formula after keratomery and A-scan. All patients underwent phacoemulsification with foldable lens implantation. Post-operative refractive error was measured after one month and mean error was calculated and compared between the two groups. Results: Eighty cases were included in the study with a mean age of 55.8 ± 6.2 years. The mean axial length was 25.63 ± 0.78mm, and the mean keratometric power was 43.68 ± 1.1 D. The mean post-operative refractive error in group A (SRK/T) was +0.36D ± 0.33D and in group B (Holladay 1) it was +0.68 ± 0.43. The Mean Error in group A was +0.37D ± 0.31D as compared to +0.69D ± 0.44D in group B. Conclusion: SRK/T formula is superior to Holladay 1 formula for cases having longer axial lengths. Key words: Phacoemulsification, intraocular lens power, longer axial length, biometry.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document