About MEAJO | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions to authors | Online submission | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology
Users Online: 1990   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 307-311

Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula in patients with normal axial length


1 Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran; Dezful University of Medical Sciences, Dezful, Iran
4 Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences; International Campus (TUMS IC), Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Hassan Hashemi
Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, 96 Esfandiar Blvd., Vali'asr Ave, Tehran
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.142266

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of  Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff II (SRK II) and 3 rd and 4 th generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and to compare the effect of different anterior chamber depths among the IOL formulas in cataract patients with normal axial length (AL; 22.0-24.5 millimeters, mm). Materials and Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients with normal AL who underwent cataract surgery. The SRK II and 3 rd generation IOL formulas (Hoffer Q, SRK T, Holladay 1) were compared to the 4 th generation Haigis formula. For analysis, preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was divided into three subgroups: ≤3, 3-3.5, and ≥ 3.5 mm. The mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) of each formula was compared for each subgroup against the total. The difference between the ME and MAE of the formulas were compared for each ACD subgroup. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The study sample was comprised of 309 eyes. The MAE were 0.56 D, 0.52 D, 0.51 D, 0.50 D, and 0.50 D with Haigis, Hoffer Q, SRK T, Holladay 1, and SRK II formulas, respectively. The Haigis formula was a significantly weaker predictor than the SRK T (P < 0.001) and Holladay 1 (P = 0.035) formulas. The ME with Haigis formula was -0.23 D which changed to -0.06 D with ACD ≥ 3.5 mm (P = 0.002). The ME was -0.24 D with SRK II and changed to -0.09D with ACD ≤ 3 mm (P = 0.004). There was no statistically significant difference between Hoffer Q, SRK T, and Holladay formulas 1 in ACD subgroups (P > 0.05, all comparisons). Conclusion: The SRK II formula can predict refraction in patients with normal AL and ACD less than 3 mm with less error and is preferred over other formulas. The Haigis formula is the preferred choice in patients with a normal AL and ACD longer than 3.5 mm. The prediction accuracy of Hoffer Q, SRK T, and Holladay 1 is comparable in normal AL.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2036    
    Printed51    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded229    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal