Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in combined phacovitrectomy

Purpose To assess the refractive accuracy of eight intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes that underwent combined phacovitrectomy. Methods A retrospective chart review of 59 eyes that underwent uncomplicated phacovitrectomy between 2017 and 2020 at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute. Inclusion...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International ophthalmology 2024-02, Vol.44 (1), p.96-96, Article 96
Main Authors: Thanitcul, Chanon, Awidi, Abdelhalim A., Ladas, John G., Siddiqui, Aazim A., Prescott, Christina R., Bower, Kraig S., Jun, Albert S., Daoud, Yassine, Srikumaran, Divya
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Acuity
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Errors
Eye
Eye lens
Eye, Artificial
Humans
Intraocular lenses
Lenses, Intraocular
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Ophthalmology
Original Paper
Radial basis function
Refraction, Ocular
Retrospective Studies
Statistical analysis
Visual acuity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose To assess the refractive accuracy of eight intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes that underwent combined phacovitrectomy. Methods A retrospective chart review of 59 eyes that underwent uncomplicated phacovitrectomy between 2017 and 2020 at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute. Inclusion criteria were postoperative best corrected visual acuity of 20/40 or better within 6 months of surgery and IOL implantation in the capsular bag. The Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVOv2.0), Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBFv3.0), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Kane, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), and SRK/T formulas were compared for accuracy in predicting postoperative spherical equivalents (SE) using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to assess correlations between biometric parameters and errors for all formulas. Results Prediction errors of SE ranged from − 1.69 to 1.43 diopters (D), mean absolute errors (MAE) ranged from 0.39 to 0.47 D, and median absolute errors (MedAE) ranged from 0.23 to 0.37 D among all formulas. The BUII had the lowest mean error (− 0.043), MAE (0.39) and MedAE (0.23). The BUII also had the highest percentage of eyes with predicted error within ± 0.25 D (51%) and ± 0.50 D (83%). Based on MedAE however, no pairwise comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences. Axial length (AL) was positively correlated with the error from the Hoffer Q and Holladay I formulas (correlation coefficients = 0.34, 0.30, p values 
ISSN:1573-2630
0165-5701
1573-2630
DOI:10.1007/s10792-024-03019-7