Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: Comparison of formulas and methods. Issue 3 (March 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Abulafia, Adi; Barrett, Graham D.; Rotenberg, Michael; Kleinmann, Guy; Levy, Adi; Reitblat, Olga; Koch, Douglas D.; Wang, Li; Assia, Ehud I.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. Volume 41:Issue 3(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-03
• Subjects: 617.7
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.06.033
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-3350

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose : To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm. Setting : Ein‐Tal Eye Center, Tel‐Aviv, Israel. Design : Retrospective case series. Methods : The postoperative refraction results in myopic eyes with an AL over 26.0 mm were compared with the predicted refractions calculated using standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) with optical IOL constants, User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants, and an AL‐adjustment method and using new‐generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). Results : In 76 (71.7%) of 106 eyes, the IOL was 6.0 diopters (D) or more (Group A) and in 30 eyes (28.3%) was less than 6.0 D (Group B). In Group A, the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen methods met the benchmark criteria of having a prediction error of ±0.5 D in at least 71.0% of eyes and ±1.0 D in 93.0% of eyes. In Group B, only the Barrett Universal II formula and the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL‐adjusted method met those criteria. Conclusion : When selecting IOLs for high and extreme myopia, choosing appropriate formulas and methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet benchmark criteria. Financial Disclosure : No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.