Search

Background: We evaluated whether the best‐fit intraocular lens (IOL) power formula for the first operated eye (BF1) was also the most accurate formula for the second eye. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 152 patients who underwent uncomplicated delayed bilateral cataract surgery with a minimum delay of 3 weeks using only one 1‐piece IOL (HOYA, Vivinex) at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Seven different formulae (Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T) were investigated to test the formula selection approach with regard to the calculated mean and median absolute prediction errors (MAE/MedAE). Results: The mean intraindividual difference in axial length was 0.2 mm (±0.3 mm). BF1 coincided with the best‐fit formula for the second eye (BF2) in 56% of patients (p < 0.05). Using BF1 for the second eye led to a lower MedAE (0.22 dioptre, D) than using a formula at random (0.33 D) and was less accurate than using the best‐fit formula for each eye separately (0.1 D). The MedAEs of all formulae were generally low, ranging from 0.28 to 0.35 D. Conclusion: Using BF1 for the second eye led to a lower MedAE than the random selection of a formula. Therefore, BF1 can be used for the second eye if the surgeon is unsure of the choice of formula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A bstract Background: To assess the accuracy of Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and SRK/T formulae in eyes with axial length of <22.00 mm. Design: Retrospective comparative analysis. Participants: 163 eyes of 97 patients undergoing phacoemulsification and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Methods: Ocular biometry was performed using IOLMaster laser interferometry. Predicted refractive outcomes before and after lens constant adjustment were compared to actual refractive outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Mean prediction (ME) and mean absolute errors (MAE) with standard deviations (±SD). Results: Mean preoperative spherical equivalent was +5.44D ± 1.97D. Mean axial length was 21.20 mm ± 0.60 mm. Using standard IOL constants the MAE for Hoffer Q (0.62D, ±0.52D) and Holladay 1 (0.66D ± 0.52D) were significantly lower than SRK/T (MAE 0.91D ± 0.64D; P = <0.0005 and P = 0.001 respectively), but not Haigis (MAE 0.82D ± 0.83D, P = 0.071 and 0.22 respectively). MAEs for all formulae were significantly reduced by IOL constant adjustment (all P = <0.001). Following this there was no statistically significant difference in MAEs between formulae (range 0.50-0.57D, P = 0.57). Increasing MAE was significantly associated with reducing axial length and increasing IOL power for all formulae. For bilateral cases, prediction errors between eyes were significantly correlated across all formulae (all P = <0.0001) and explained 32-42% of the variance in prediction error between eyes. Conclusions: Prediction of postoperative refraction in patients with short axial lengths is challenging and at the limit of current, popular IOL formulae. There is now a clear need for prospective studies to assess latest generation IOL formulae such as Holladay 2 or Olsen in small eyes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]