Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia: Comparison of Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas. Issue 6 (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rong, Xianfang; He, Wenwen; Zhu, Qian; Qian, Dongjin; Lu, Yi; Zhu, Xiangjia
• Is Part Of: Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. Volume 45:Issue 6(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: 617.7
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-3350

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose : To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with extreme myopia. Setting : Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Design : Prospective case series. Methods : Eyes were divided into 3 axial length (AL) groups as follows: 26.0 to 28.0 mm (control), 28.0 to 30.0 mm (extreme myopia 1), and 30.0 mm or more (extreme myopia 2). The mean error (ME) 1 month postoperatively was adjusted to zero by optimizing the lens factor; then, the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were compared between formulas. Factors associated with postoperative refractive errors were analyzed. Results : After optimization, the MEs of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas were 0.04 diopter (D) ± 0.48 (SD), 0.04 ± 0.66 D, and 0.04 ± 0.52 D, respectively, and the MedAEs were 0.37 D, 0.46 D, and 0.39 D, respectively ( P = .044; Haigis versus Barrett: P = .038). In the extreme myopia 1 group, all 3 formulas produced small MedAEs ( P = .662). In the extreme myopia 2 group, the Haigis formula produced a significantly greater MedAE than the Barrett Universal II formula ( P = .007; Haigis versus Olsen: P = .055). The accuracy of the Haigis formula in myopic eyes was affected by the AL and keratometry value, whereas the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas was affected by the AL only. Conclusions : In eyes with an AL of 28.0 to 30.0 mm, all 3 formulas were accurate. In eyes with AL of 30.0 mm or more, the Barrett Universal II formula was better than the Haigis formula, possibly because there were fewer influencing factors.