Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens
Abstract To compare the accuracy of the modern biometric formulas in cataract surgery according to axial length and lens type. It is a Cross-sectional design from 365 patients who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay I formulas were extracted from the IOLMaster 500 b...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31970-5 |
| _version_ | 1797859989042233344 |
|---|---|
| author | Noelia Sánchez-Liñan Antonio Pérez-Rueda Tesifón Parrón-Carreño Bruno-José Nievas-Soriano Gracia Castro-Luna |
| author_facet | Noelia Sánchez-Liñan Antonio Pérez-Rueda Tesifón Parrón-Carreño Bruno-José Nievas-Soriano Gracia Castro-Luna |
| author_sort | Noelia Sánchez-Liñan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract To compare the accuracy of the modern biometric formulas in cataract surgery according to axial length and lens type. It is a Cross-sectional design from 365 patients who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay I formulas were extracted from the IOLMaster 500 biometer. Barret formulas and the Kane were obtained from the online calculator. Patients are classified according to axial length (AL) into three groups: AL ≤ 22 mm, 22 < AL < 25 mm, and AL ≥ 25 mm. In addition, implanted intraocular lenses are classified as Monofocal, extended focus, and Multifocal. There are no significant differences between the formulas. In short, the Kane formula was more accurate than the other biometric formulas. Kane and SRK/T were the most accurate in monofocal lenses, with the lowest residual refractive error. The Holladay I formula obtained the lowest mean absolute error with the highest number of eyes with minimum residual ± 0.5Dp in the multifocal lenses in the 22 < AL < 25 mm eyes. In the long AL eyes, SRK/T and Kane's obtained the lowest mean absolute error and the best percentage of eyes with ± 0.5Dp of residual refractive error. There are no significant differences between the formulas. However Kane's formula has shown high accuracy, especially in short and long eyes with monofocal lenses. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:38:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e724e6f8137b43d5b970969d7e38b592 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T21:38:30Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-e724e6f8137b43d5b970969d7e38b5922023-03-26T11:09:53ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222023-03-011311810.1038/s41598-023-31970-5Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lensNoelia Sánchez-Liñan0Antonio Pérez-Rueda1Tesifón Parrón-Carreño2Bruno-José Nievas-Soriano3Gracia Castro-Luna4Department of Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Medicine, University of AlmeríaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Hospital Universitario TorrecárdenasDepartment of Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Medicine, University of AlmeríaDepartment of Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Medicine, University of AlmeríaDepartment of Nursing, Physiotherapy, and Medicine, University of AlmeríaAbstract To compare the accuracy of the modern biometric formulas in cataract surgery according to axial length and lens type. It is a Cross-sectional design from 365 patients who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay I formulas were extracted from the IOLMaster 500 biometer. Barret formulas and the Kane were obtained from the online calculator. Patients are classified according to axial length (AL) into three groups: AL ≤ 22 mm, 22 < AL < 25 mm, and AL ≥ 25 mm. In addition, implanted intraocular lenses are classified as Monofocal, extended focus, and Multifocal. There are no significant differences between the formulas. In short, the Kane formula was more accurate than the other biometric formulas. Kane and SRK/T were the most accurate in monofocal lenses, with the lowest residual refractive error. The Holladay I formula obtained the lowest mean absolute error with the highest number of eyes with minimum residual ± 0.5Dp in the multifocal lenses in the 22 < AL < 25 mm eyes. In the long AL eyes, SRK/T and Kane's obtained the lowest mean absolute error and the best percentage of eyes with ± 0.5Dp of residual refractive error. There are no significant differences between the formulas. However Kane's formula has shown high accuracy, especially in short and long eyes with monofocal lenses.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31970-5 |
| spellingShingle | Noelia Sánchez-Liñan Antonio Pérez-Rueda Tesifón Parrón-Carreño Bruno-José Nievas-Soriano Gracia Castro-Luna Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens Scientific Reports |
| title | Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| title_full | Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| title_short | Evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| title_sort | evaluation of biometric formulas in the calculation of intraocular lens according to axial length and type of the lens |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31970-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT noeliasanchezlinan evaluationofbiometricformulasinthecalculationofintraocularlensaccordingtoaxiallengthandtypeofthelens AT antonioperezrueda evaluationofbiometricformulasinthecalculationofintraocularlensaccordingtoaxiallengthandtypeofthelens AT tesifonparroncarreno evaluationofbiometricformulasinthecalculationofintraocularlensaccordingtoaxiallengthandtypeofthelens AT brunojosenievassoriano evaluationofbiometricformulasinthecalculationofintraocularlensaccordingtoaxiallengthandtypeofthelens AT graciacastroluna evaluationofbiometricformulasinthecalculationofintraocularlensaccordingtoaxiallengthandtypeofthelens |