Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.
PURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS:The study included patients...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638 |
| _version_ | 1819016862695948288 |
|---|---|
| author | Se Young Kim Seung Hyun Lee Na Rae Kim Hee Seung Chin Ji Won Jung |
| author_facet | Se Young Kim Seung Hyun Lee Na Rae Kim Hee Seung Chin Ji Won Jung |
| author_sort | Se Young Kim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | PURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS:The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS:There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T02:54:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5d732dcb27ee42229b3aebbf88bb0c4e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T02:54:23Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-5d732dcb27ee42229b3aebbf88bb0c4e2022-12-21T19:18:23ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01151e022763810.1371/journal.pone.0227638Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.Se Young KimSeung Hyun LeeNa Rae KimHee Seung ChinJi Won JungPURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS:The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS:There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638 |
| spellingShingle | Se Young Kim Seung Hyun Lee Na Rae Kim Hee Seung Chin Ji Won Jung Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. PLoS ONE |
| title | Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. |
| title_full | Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. |
| title_fullStr | Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. |
| title_short | Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer. |
| title_sort | accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept source optical biometer |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT seyoungkim accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer AT seunghyunlee accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer AT naraekim accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer AT heeseungchin accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer AT jiwonjung accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer |