Comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes after corneal refractive surgery

  • Wang X
  • Cui R
  • Song X
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background In cataract surgery, calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients who have previously received corneal refractive surgery on the same eye presents a clinical challenge. This study aims to compare the accuracy of the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas in predicting the IOL power in eyes following corneal refractive surgery. Methods This study analyzed 32 eyes belonging to 28 patients who underwent cataract surgery and IOL implantation after previously undergoing myopic corneal refractive surgery. The IOL power was calculated using the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas, and the accuracy of the three formulas was compared. Results The Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas had a mean arithmetic IOL prediction error of -0.65, -0.39, and -0.46, respectively. The mean numerical errors of the three formulas were significantly different from zero (P<0.001). The smallest median absolute refraction prediction error (median =0.40) belonged to the Barrett True-K formula, which was significantly smaller than that of the Haigis-L formula (median =0.57, P<0.05) but similar to that of the Shammas-PL formula (median =0.49, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the percentage of eyes within either ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction error across the three formulas. Conclusions The Barrett True-K formula can predict IOL power in eyes that have previously undergone myopic corneal refractive surgery better than the Haigis-L formula.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, X.-Z., Cui, R., Song, X.-D., Yun, B., Qian, J., & Ding, N. (2020). Comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes after corneal refractive surgery. Annals of Translational Medicine, 8(14), 871–871. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4624

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free