Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: Comparison of formulas and methods

Adi Abulafia, Graham D. Barrett, Michael Rotenberg, Guy Kleinmann, Adi Levy, Olga Reitblat, Douglas D. Koch, Li Wang, Ehud I. Assia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm. Setting Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Design Retrospective case series. Methods The postoperative refraction results in myopic eyes with an AL over 26.0 mm were compared with the predicted refractions calculated using standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) with optical IOL constants, User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants, and an AL-adjustment method and using new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). Results In 76 (71.7%) of 106 eyes, the IOL was 6.0 diopters (D) or more (Group A) and in 30 eyes (28.3%) was less than 6.0 D (Group B). In Group A, the SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen methods met the benchmark criteria of having a prediction error of ±0.5 D in at least 71.0% of eyes and ±1.0 D in 93.0% of eyes. In Group B, only the Barrett Universal II formula and the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL-adjusted method met those criteria. Conclusion When selecting IOLs for high and extreme myopia, choosing appropriate formulas and methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet benchmark criteria. Financial Disclosure No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)548-556
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Volume41
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 26.0 mm: Comparison of formulas and methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this