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: 1480   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents 
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

Date of Web Publication4-Oct-2014

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
   Abstract 

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.

Keywords: Anterior Chamber Depth, Intraocular Lens Formula, Normal Axial Length


How to cite this article:
Miraftab M, Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Khabazkhoob M, Rezvan F, Asgari S. Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula in patients with normal axial length . Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 2014;21:307-11

How to cite this URL:
Miraftab M, Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Khabazkhoob M, Rezvan F, Asgari S. Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula in patients with normal axial length . Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Jun 17];21:307-11. Available from: http://www.meajo.org/text.asp?2014/21/4/307/142266


   Introduction Top


Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas have evolved over the past 30 years to improve the refractive outcome of modern cataract surgery. The efficacy of IOL implantation depends on the accuracy of ocular biometric measurements and the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas. [1],[2] Ocular biometric data used in these formulas include the axial length (AL), corneal power, and anterior chamber depth (ACD). [3],[4] Studies have reported that every 1 mm deviation of the corneal diameter, AL, and ACD can result in 5.7 D, 2.7 D, and 1.5 D of refractive error, respectively. [5] Today, the accuracy of AL measurements has increased by using the IOL Master; [6] thus, the AL contributes to residual refractive error a lot less than ACD. The reported contribution to error from ACD, AL, and corneal power is 42, 36, and 22%, respectively. Therefore, one of the main causes of residual refractive error with IOL formulas is neglecting the role of the ACD. [5]

Studies have focused on refining IOL calculation formulas from the 1 st generation to the 4 th generation to improve their accuracy. [3],[7],[8],[9] The SRK II, a 2 nd generation formula, is still favored by clinicians and is commonly used in many countries [10] including our country, Iran, and Singapore. [11] The Hoffer Q, SRK T, and Holladay 1 are 3 rd generation formulas which consider AL and corneal height to determine the effective lens position (ELP). [5] The Haigis formula is one of the 4 th generation formulas which considers the preoperative ACD, in addition to AL, to predict ELP. [5]

As SRK II is still used in many clinical settings in our country, we designed this study to examine the accuracy and refractive prediction error of SRK II, Hoffer Q, SRK T, Holladay 1, and Haigis in patients who were candidates for cataract surgery and had normal axial length (22.0-24.5 millimeters, mm). We specifically evaluated the role of ACD to determine why the SRK II formula performs well and is preferred by many clinicians.


   Materials and methods Top


A retrospective chart review was performed of patients who underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation at our center from 2010 to 2011. The surgeries were performed by one surgeon (HH). Inclusion criteria were an AL between 22.0 and 24.5 mm (normal range), availability of preoperative AL, corneal power, preoperative ACD data, 1-month postoperative refraction data, and uncomplicated surgery. This study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

AL, corneal power, and ACD were measured with IOL Master version 5.4 (Zeiss AG, Jena, Germany). All eyes underwent sutureless phacoemulsification under topical anesthesia with a 2.8 mm temporal clear corneal incision. All eyes underwent Acrysof SA60AT lens (Alcon Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) implantation and an optimized A-constant of 119. All eyes were targeted for emmetropia.

For analysis, preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was divided into three subgroups: ≤3, 3-3.5, and ≥3.5 mm.

The main outcome measures of this study were the mean error (ME) calculated as the arithmetic mean deviation from the predicted postoperative refractive outcome, and the mean absolute error (MAE) calculated as the absolute mean deviation from the predicted postoperative refractive outcome. To compare errors with these formulas, we used the repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the ME and MAE. Post-hoc analysis was used for multiple comparisons among formulas. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation of ACD with the ME and MAE, one-way ANOVA and post-hoc to compare the ME and MAE of each formula in the different ACD subgroups. The one-sample test was used to compare the errors of each formula in the different ACD subgroups with the total sample. In all analyses, the level of significance was set at 0.05.


   Results Top


Based on the inclusion criteria, data from 309 eyes was extracted for analysis and 50.8% of the samples were right eyes. The mean age of the participants was 67.19 ± 14.81 years. The mean ACD was 3.19 ± 0.41 mm (range, 2.01-4.05 mm), the mean AL was 23.11 ± 0.63 mm (range, 22.02-24.47 mm), and the mean corneal power 44.73 ± 1.62 D (range, 39.57-49.87 D). The mean postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) was -0.29 ± 0.58 D.

The ME, MAE, and MAE percentages with each formula are summarized in [Table 1]. Compared to the Haigis formula (which had the highest MAE), SRK T (P < 0.001) and Holladay 1 (P = 0.035) had the least error. The differences in MAE between other formulas were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, all comparisons). The inter formula differences in the percentage of the MAE of ≤ 0.25D, ≤1.0D, and ≤ 2.0D were not statistically significant (P > 0.05, all comparisons). However, at the ≤ 0.5 D level of error, predictions with Haigis were significantly worse than with the Hoffer Q (P = 0.034), SRK T (P = 0.007), and Holladay 1 (P = 0.032) formulas, whereas the predictions with SRK II were not significantly different from other formulas (P > 0.05, all comparisons).
Table 1: The inter formula mean error and mean absolute error differences in 309 eyes that underwent cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation


Click here to view


ACD was inversely correlated with the MAE for all formulas. The inter formula differences in the MAE were not statistically significant for all subgroups of ACD [Table 2]. Stated differently, taking ACD into account had no effect on the MAE, and errors in different ACD levels were not significantly different from those in the total sample.
Table 2: The inter formula mean error and mean absolute error differences in the category of anterior chamber depth in 309 eyes that underwent cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation


Click here to view


As the MAE does not demonstrate the direction of undercorrection or overcorrection, we performed analyses with the ME. The SRK II formula showed similar under- and over- estimation predictions in ACD ≤ 3 mm. Similarly, the Haigis formula had similar under- and overestimation for ACD ≥ 3.5 mm [Table 3]. In other words, the prediction with SRK II was closer to emmetropia at lower ACD readings and prediction with Haigis was closer to emmetropia at higher ACD readings. The inter formula ME differences were statistically significant at ACD levels ≤3.0 mm [Table 2]. Post-hoc analysis showed that the ME with SRK II differed significantly from Hoffer Q (P < 0.001), SRK T (P < 0.001), and Holladay 1 (P < 0.001) formulas. In this ACD category, Haigis and SRK II did not differ significantly in terms of ME, although SRK II predictions were closer to emmetropia when compared to Haigis (P > 0.05). Inter formula differences in the ME were not statistically significant in the ACD 3.0-3.5 mm subgroup (P > 0.05). At ACD ≥ 3.5 mm, the Haigis ME differed significantly from SRK II (P = 0.025), Hoffer Q (P = 0.049), SRK T (P = 0.021), and Holladay 1 (P = 0.035).
Table 3: The percentage of the mean error of the formulae in the category of anterior chamber depth in 309 eyes that underwent cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation


Click here to view


To examine the effect of ACD, the ME of each formula was compared with the ME for each subgroup of ACD. We found a statistically significant difference between SRK II ME in the total sample and in the ACD ≤ 3.0 mm subgroup (-0.24 and -0.09D, respectively; P < 0.001). There was also a statistically significant difference between the Haigis ME in the total sample and in the ACD > 3.5mm category (-0.23 D and -0.06 D, respectively; P < 0.001). Other comparisons within these two formulas or the other 3 formulas showed no statistically significant differences.


   Discussion Top


The outcomes of the present study indicate that for normal AL (22.0-24.5 mm), Haigis is less accurate than SRK T and Holladay 1 formulas. There were no statistically significant differences between errors with SRK T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK II formulas and their accuracies were comparable. We considered preoperative ACD, and the predictions changed for these formulas. At ACDs higher than 3.5 mm, predictions with Haigis were closest to emmetropia, and at ACDs less than 3 mm, SRK II was closest to emmetropia. We know that there is a reduction in ELP as preoperative ACD decreases, and lower IOL power is needed. Hence, it can be concluded that the tendency for underestimation observed with SRK II, which usually suggests lower IOL powers compared to other formulas, compensates for this error and results in predicted refraction that is closer to emmetropia.

According to two major population-based studies in Iran, the mean ACD in the population over 40 years old is less than 3.0 mm [between 2.50 mm and 2.69 mm with the Orbscan (Bausch and Lomb Inc., Rochester, NY, USA) [11] and 2.69 mm with the Pentacam (OCULUS Optikgerδte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany)] [12] , and it appears that in Iranian cataract surgery candidates with normal AL, predictions with SRK II are accurate as well as formulas. Notably, SRK II is a 2 nd generation formula and its predictions have been reported to be less reliable than other formulas. [13] Hoffer Q, SRK T and Holladay 1 st are 3 rd generation formulas and Haigis is a 4 th generation formula that takes ACD into account. However, SRK II is the best choice in certain patients (AL 22.0-24.5, and ACD ≤ 3.0).

Comparing Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK T formulas in cases with AL between 22.0 mm and 24.5 mm, Hoffer [14] suggested Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q are the optimal formulas. In a study by Narvaez et al., [15] the accuracy of these three formulas were comparable. In a study by Aristodemou et al., [3] the MAE with different formulas was similar for AL of 22.0-23.5 mm while Holladay 1 had slightly better predictions than other formulas for AL 23.5-24.5 mm. A study by Elder [16] reported that that SRK T formula had less than 0.5 D error for the MZ30BD IOL (Alcon Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) in 56% of the cases. In our study, this value was 62.4% for the SA60AT IOL. Based on these outcomes we believe that predictions with Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK T formulas are quite similar in eyes with normal AL, and there are no clinically significant differences among the formulas. The minor differences between studies can be due to differences in the type of IOL, differences in devices measuring biometric components including AL, differences in the number and expertise of surgeons, as well as differences in the sample size and the power of the study. However, a very important cause of differences among study results mentioned here is the variation in anatomic characteristics and ocular parameters in different populations. The normal range of ACD in a given population can help with the choice of IOL calculation formula, and could differ among different populations. As demonstrated in this study and based on our clinical experience, SRK II is the suggested formula for patients with normal AL and ACD ≤ 3.0 mm because its tendency for underestimation of the IOL power leads to the least deviation from emmetropia.

In our study, the Haigis formula had 0.56 D ME in the total sample and its predictions were significantly less accurate than SRK T and Holladay 1 formulas. This formula showed no difference with 3 rd generation formulas such as SRK T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q at ACD 3.0-3.5 mm. However, in patients whose ACD is at least 3.5 mm, the calculation IOL power from the Haigis formula was close to emmetropia. In European populations, the mean ACD has been reported at least 1.0 mm higher than our study sample. [17],[18],[19],[20] In contrast, in a Singaporean population, where the mean ACD (3.08 mm) [21] is lower than the European and American populations, the accuracy of SRK II in the prediction of refractive results is good and it is routinely used in practice. [11] This observation could explain better outcomes from 4 th generation formulas such as the Haigis formula in European patients. Our results and the findings from other studies are presented in [Table 4].
Table 4: The accuracy of intra-ocular lens power calculation formula reported in different studies


Click here to view


In conclusion, differences in ocular biometric characteristics cause differences in accuracy of IOL formulas. These differences allow different IOL formulas to be used for different biometric characteristics. In populations which have higher mean ACDs, 4 th generation formulas may provide better and more accurate predictions. However, in populations such as the Iranian population where the mean ACD is lower, SRK II can still be used as a low error formula.

 
   References Top

1.Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:368-76.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Preussner PR, Olsen T, Hoffmann P, Findl O. Intraocular lens calculation accuracy limits in normal eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:802-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:63-71.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:1658-63.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: A review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:472-85.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Habibabadi HF, Hashemi H, Jalali KH, Amini A, Esfahani MR. Refractive outcome of silicone oil removal and intraocular lens implantation using laser interferometry. Retina 2005;25:162-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Bang S, Edell E, Yu Q, Pratzer K, Stark W. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology 2011;118:503-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Gregory PT, Esbester RM, Boase DL. Accuracy of routine intraocular lens power calculation in a district general hospital. Br J Ophthalmol 1989;73:57-60.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Lagrasta JM, Allemann N, Scapucin L, Moeller CT, Ohkawara LE, Melo LA Jr, et al. Clinical results in phacoemulsification using the SRK/T formula. Arq Bras Oftalmol 2009;72:189-93.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Hill WE. J Cataract Refract Surg today. Highly Accurate IOL Calculations. 2005. Available from: http://www.crstoday.com/PDF%20Articles/0305/f2_Hill.html. [Last accessed  on 2013 Apr 27].  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Lim LH, Lee SY, Ang CL. Factors affecting the predictability of SRK II in patients with normal axial length undergoing phacoemulsification surgery. Singapore Med J 2009;50:120-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Asgari S, Hashemi H, Mehravaran S, Khabazkhoob M, Emamian MH, Jafarzadehpur E, et al. Corneal refractive power and eccentricity in the 40- to 64-year-old population of Shahroud, Iran. Cornea 2013;32:25-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 1990;16:333-40.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Hoffer KJ. Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:1233-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Narvaez J, Zimmerman G, Stulting RD, Chang DH. Accuracy of intraocular lens power prediction using the Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:2050-3.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Elder MJ. Predicting the refractive outcome after cataract surgery: The comparison of different IOLs and SRK-II v SRK-T. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:620-2.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Meinhardt B, Stachs O, Stave J, Beck R, Guthoff R. Evaluation of biometric methods for measuring the anterior chamber depth in the non-contact mode. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244:559-64.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Rabsilber TM, Becker KA, Frisch IB, Auffarth GU. Anterior chamber depth in relation to refractive status measured with the Orbscan II Topography System. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:2115-21.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Reddy AR, Pande MV, Finn P, El-Gogary H. Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:1268-71.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Shufelt C, Fraser-Bell S, Ying-Lai M, Torres M, Varma R. Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Refractive error, ocular biometry, and lens opalescence in an adult population: The Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:4450-60.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Lavanya R, Teo L, Friedman DS, Aung HT, Baskaran M, Gao H, et al. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLMaster, scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyser, and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1023-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1832    
    Printed43    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded229    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal