|
|
Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Three Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas for Postoperative Refractive Power in Cataract Patients with Ultra-High Myopia |
Yan Tan, Wenjuan Wan, Can Li |
Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Chongqing Eye Institute, Chongqing 400016, China |
|
|
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the prediction accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Haigis and Barrett Universal Ⅱ) for postoperative refractive power using a Pentacam AXL panoramic biometer in cataract patients with ultra-high myopia. Methods: This was a prospective clinical study. Thirty-two cataract patients (56 eyes) with ultra-high myopia [axial length (AL) ≥28 mm] who underwent cataract surgery in the Ophthalmology Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from October 2017 to March 2018 were selected. The Pentacam AXL panoramic biometer was used to measure the anterior and posterior corneal surface curvature, anterior chamber depth and AL. An intraocular lens (IOL) with appropriate residual refractive power was individually selected for each eye, and the postoperative residual refractive powers of the three formulas were obtained. The refractive powers of the patients at three months after surgery were measured. Then the difference between the preoperative residual refractive power and postoperative refractive power, which was called the mean refractive error, the absolute value of the difference, which was called the mean absolute refractive error (MAE), were calculated. The quantitative data of non-normal distributions were expressed by the median and percentile (P25, P75), and the measurement data were tested by a Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between AL and MAE. Results: The median and percentile (P25, P75) of the mean refractive errors of the SRK/T, Haigis and Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula were -0.18(-0.53, 0.23), -0.18(-0.54, 0.09), -0.11(-0.49, 0.15), respectively. The mean refractive error of the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula was significantly lower than that of SRK/T formula (Z=-2.517, P=0.012). However, the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula agreed with the Haigis formula, the Haigis formula agreed with the SRK/T formula, and the differences in mean refractive error were not statistically significance (P>0.05). The median and percentile (P25, P75) of MAE of the SRK/T, Haigis and Barrett Universal Ⅱ formulas were 0.40(0.20, 0.61), 0.32(0.14, 0.64), 0.27(0.12, 0.55), respectively. And there were no significant differences among the Barrett Universal Ⅱ, Haigis and SRK/T formulas (P>0.05). Moreover, the MAE is related to AL. In the SRK/T formula, an increase of 1 mm in axial length led to an increase of 0.23 D in MAE; in the Haigis formula, an axial length increase by 1 mm led to a MAE increase of 0.04 D; but in the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula, an axial length increase of 1 mm led to an absolute error reduction of 0.01 D. Conclusions: The three IOL power calculation formulas are relatively accurate for postoperative refractive error in cataract patients with ultra-high myopia. The Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula has more advantages than the SRK/T formula and Haigis formula.
|
Received: 03 December 2018
|
Corresponding Authors:
Can Li, Department of Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing
Medical University, Chongqing Key Lab of Ophthalmology, Chongqing Eye Institute, Chongqing 400016,
China (Email: 892496605@qq.com)
|
|
|
|
[1] |
Matamoros E, Ingrand P, Pelen F, et al. Prevalence of myopia in
|
|
France: A cross-sectional analysis. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015,
|
94 |
(45): e1976.321. DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000001976.
|
[2] |
Jonas JB, Xu L, Wang YX, et al. Education-related parameters
|
|
in high myopia: adults versus school children. PLoS One, 2016,
|
11 |
(5):e0154554. DOI: 10.1371/journal. pone.0154554.
|
[3] |
Wong TY, Foster PJ, Hee J, et al. Prevalence and risk factors
|
|
for refractive errors in adult Chinese in Singapore. Invest
|
|
Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2000, 41(9): 2486-2494. DOI: 10.1016/
|
|
S0273-1177(97)00651-0.
|
[4] |
Zhu X, Zhang K, He W, et al. Proinflammatory status in the
|
|
aqueous humor of high myopic cataract eyes. Exp Eye Res,
|
20 |
16, 142: 13-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2015.03.017.
|
[5] |
Younan C, Mitchell P, Cumming RG, et al. Myopia and incident
|
|
cataract and cataract surgery: The Blue Mountains Eye Study.
|
|
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2002, 43(12): 3625-3632.
|
[6] |
Hashemi M, Falavarjani KG, Aghai GH, et al. Anterior segment
|
|
study with the Pentacam Scheimpflug camera in refractive
|
|
surgery candidates. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 2013, 20(3):
|
21 |
2-216. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.114793.
|
[7] |
Chen D, Lam AK. Reliability and repeatability of the Pentacam
|
|
on corneal curvatures. Clin Exp Optom, 2009, 92(2): 110-118.
|
|
DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00336.x.
|
[8] |
Chong EW, Mehta JS. High myopia and cataract surgery.
|
|
Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2016, 27(1): 45-50. DOI: 10.1097/
|
|
ICU.0000000000000217.
|
[9] |
Cetinkaya S, Acir NO, Cetinkaya YF, et al. Phacoemulsification
|
|
in eyes with cataract and high myopia. Arq Bras Oftalmol, 2015,
|
78 |
(5): 286-289. DOI: 10.5935/0004-2749.20150076.
|
[10] |
Ma S, Zheng D, Lin L, et al. Comparison of visual quality after
|
|
implantation of big bag and akreos adapt intraocular lenses in
|
|
patients with high myopia. Eye Sci, 2015, 30(1): 18-22. DOI:
|
10 |
3969-j.issn.1000-4432.2015.01.004.
|
[11] |
Chen C, Xu X, Miao Y, et al. Accuracy of intraocular lens
|
|
power formulas involving 148 eyes with long axial lengths: A
|
|
retrospective chart-review study. J Ophthalmol, 2015, 2015:
|
97 |
6847. DOI: 10.1155/2015/976847.
|
[12] |
Zuberbuhler B, Seyedian M, Tuft S. Phacoemulsification in eyes
|
|
with extreme axial myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2009, 35(2):
|
33 |
5-340. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.10.044.
|
[13] |
Hoffer KJ, Savini G. IOL power calculation in short and long
|
|
eyes. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila), 2017, 6(4): 330-331. DOI:
|
10 |
22608/APO.2017338.
|
[14] |
Jeong J, Song H, Lee JK, et al. The effect of ocular biometric
|
|
factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation
|
|
formulas. BMC Ophthalmol, 2017, 17(1): 62. DOI: 10.1186/
|
|
s12886-017-0454-y.
|
[15] |
Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of intraocular
|
|
lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology, 2018, 125(2): 169-
|
17 |
8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027.
|
[16] |
Zhang Y, Liang XY, Liu S, et al. Accuracy of intraocular
|
|
lens power calculation formulas for highly myopic eyes. J
|
|
Ophthalmol, 2016, 2016:1917268. DOI: 10.1155/2016/1917268.
|
[17] |
Chong EW, Mehta JS. High myopia and cataract surgery. Curr
|
|
Opin Ophthalmol, 2016, 27(1): 45-50. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.
|
00 |
00000000000217.
|
[18] |
Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Rotenberg M, et al. Intraocular lens
|
|
power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than
|
26 |
0 mm: comparison of formulas and methods. J Cataract
|
|
Refract Surg, 2015, 41(3): 548-556. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.
|
06 |
033.
|
[19] |
Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, et al. Intraocular lens power
|
|
formula accuracy: Comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract
|
|
Surg, 2016, 42(10): 1490-1500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.
|
|
021.
|
|
|
|