Menu
×
West Ashley Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 766-6635
Wando Mount Pleasant Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6888
Village Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 884-9741
St. Paul's/Hollywood Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 889-3300
Otranto Road Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 572-4094
Mt. Pleasant Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 849-6161
McClellanville Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 887-3699
Keith Summey North Charleston Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 744-2489
John's Island Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 559-1945
Hurd/St. Andrews Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 766-2546
Folly Beach Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 588-2001
Edisto Island Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 869-2355
Dorchester Road Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 552-6466
John L. Dart Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 722-7550
Baxter-Patrick James Island
Closed
Phone: (843) 795-6679
Main Library
2 p.m. – 5 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6930
Bees Ferry West Ashley Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6892
Edgar Allan Poe/Sullivan's Island Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 883-3914
Mobile Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6909
Today's Hours
West Ashley Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 766-6635
Wando Mount Pleasant Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6888
Village Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 884-9741
St. Paul's/Hollywood Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 889-3300
Otranto Road Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 572-4094
Mt. Pleasant Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 849-6161
McClellanville Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 887-3699
Keith Summey North Charleston Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 744-2489
John's Island Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 559-1945
Hurd/St. Andrews Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 766-2546
Folly Beach Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 588-2001
Edisto Island Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 869-2355
Dorchester Road Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 552-6466
John L. Dart Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 722-7550
Baxter-Patrick James Island
Closed
Phone: (843) 795-6679
Main Library
2 p.m. – 5 p.m.
Phone: (843) 805-6930
Bees Ferry West Ashley Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6892
Edgar Allan Poe/Sullivan's Island Library
Closed for renovations
Phone: (843) 883-3914
Mobile Library
Closed
Phone: (843) 805-6909
Patron Login
menu
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.
Item request has been placed!
×
Item request cannot be made.
×
Processing Request
- Author(s): Lin Y;Lin Y; Yin Y; Yin Y; Huang C; Huang C; Ng TK; Ng TK; Qiu K; Qiu K; Ma Y; Ma Y; Ma D; Ma D
- Source:International ophthalmology [Int Ophthalmol] 2024 Dec 09; Vol. 45 (1), pp. 2. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Dec 09.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Language:English
- Additional Information
- Source: Publisher: Kluwer Country of Publication: Netherlands NLM ID: 7904294 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1573-2630 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01655701 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int Ophthalmol Subsets: MEDLINE
- Publication Information: Publication: Dordrecht : Kluwer
Original Publication: The Hague, Junk. - Subject Terms: Glaucoma, Angle-Closure*/surgery ; Glaucoma, Angle-Closure*/physiopathology ; Glaucoma, Angle-Closure*/diagnosis ; Phacoemulsification*/methods ; Lenses, Intraocular*; Humans ; Male ; Female ; Aged ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Ciliary Body/surgery ; Refraction, Ocular/physiology ; Intraocular Pressure/physiology ; Biometry/methods ; Visual Acuity ; Reproducibility of Results ; Aged, 80 and over ; Lens Implantation, Intraocular/methods ; Optics and Photonics
- Abstract: Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).
Methods: Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.
Results: A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict interests. Ethics approval: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Joint Shantou International Eye Center (JSIEC) of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shantou city, China). The study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval number: EC20200609(6)-P12. Informed consent: Because this study was retrospective, informed consent for inclusion was waived.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.) - References: Y. Liang, D. Friedman, Q. Zhou, X. Yang, L. Sun, L. Guo, D. Chang, L. Lian, N. Wang, J.I.o. , v. science, Prevalence and characteristics of primary angle-closure diseases in a rural adult Chinese population: the Handan Eye Study, 52(12) (2011) 8672-9.
M. Walland, R. Thomas, Role of clear lens extraction in adult angle closure disease: a review, Clin Exp Ophthalmol 39(1) (2011) 61–4; quiz 92.
Tham CC, Kwong YY, Leung DY, Lam SW, Li FC, Chiu TY, Chan JC, Chan CH, Poon AS, Yick DW, Chi CC, Lam DS, Lai JS (2008) Phacoemulsification versus combined phacotrabeculectomy in medically controlled chronic angle closure glaucoma with cataract. Ophthalmology 115(12):2167–2173. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.06.01618801576)
Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F (2001) Effect of cataract surgery on intraocular pressure control in glaucoma patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(11):1779–1786. (PMID: 10.1016/S0886-3350(01)01036-711709251)
Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Ramsay C, Cooper D, Foster PJ, Friedman DS, Scotland G, Javanbakht M, Cochrane C, Norrie J (2016) E.s. group, Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388(10052):1389–1397. (PMID: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30956-427707497)
Rodrigues IA, Alaghband P, Beltran Agullo L, Galvis E, Jones S, Husain R, Lim KS (2017) Aqueous outflow facility after phacoemulsification with or without goniosynechialysis in primary angle closure: a randomised controlled study. Br J Ophthalmol 101(7):879–885. (PMID: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-30955628400374)
Liu Y, Li W, Jiu X, Lei X, Liu L, Yan C, Li X (2019) systematic review and meta-analysis of comparing phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis to other mainstream procedures in treating patients with angle-closure glaucoma. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(42):e17654. (PMID: 10.1097/MD.000000000001765431626152)
Kang SY, Hong S, Won JB, Seong GJ, Kim CY (2009) Inaccuracy of intraocular lens power prediction for cataract surgery in angle-closure glaucoma. Yonsei Med J 50(2):206–210. (PMID: 10.3349/ymj.2009.50.2.206194305522678694)
Joo J, Whang WJ, Oh TH, Kang KD, Kim HS, Moon JI (2011) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol 25(6):375–379. (PMID: 10.3341/kjo.2011.25.6.375221317733223703)
Darcy K, Gunn D, Tavassoli S, Sparrow J, Kane JX (2020) Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK national health service. J Cataract Refract Surg 46(1):2–7. (PMID: 32050225)
Wendelstein J, Hoffmann P, Hirnschall N, Fischinger IR, Mariacher S, Wingert T, Langenbucher A, Bolz M (2022) Project hyperopic power prediction: accuracy of 13 different concepts for intraocular lens calculation in short eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 106(6):795–801. (PMID: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-31827233504489)
Mo E, Feng K, Li Q, Xu J, Cen J, Li J, Zhao YE (2023) Efficacy of corneal curvature on the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 302 highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 49(12):1195–1200. (PMID: 10.1097/j.jcrs.000000000000130337702529)
Guo C, Yin S, Qiu K, Zhang M (2022) Comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 29.0 mm. Int Ophthalmol 42(7):2029–2038. (PMID: 10.1007/s10792-021-02194-1355364559085560)
Olsen T (2007) Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85(5):472–485. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2007.00879.x17403024)
Yang S, Whang WJ, Joo CK (2017) Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula. PLoS ONE 12(12):e0189868. (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189868292538845734766)
Ballae Ganeshrao S, Senthil S, Choudhari N, Sri Durgam S, Garudadri CS (2019) Comparison of visual field progression rates among the high tension glaucoma, primary angle closure glaucoma, and normal tension glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 60(4):889–900. (PMID: 10.1167/iovs.18-2542130835290)
Tan L, Ma D, He J, Wang H, Chen S, Lin Y (2022) The topographic relationship between choroidal microvascular dropout and glaucomatous damage in primary angle-closure glaucoma. Transl Vis Sci Technol 11(10):20. (PMID: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.20362399679586131)
Hoffer KJ, Savini G (2021) Update on intraocular lens power calculation study protocols. Ophthalmology 128(11):e115–e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.07.005. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.07.00532653457)
Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ (2018) Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology 125(2):169–178. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.02728951074)
Ma Y, Lin Y, Li Y, Hu Z, Qiu K (2023) Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths. Front Med (Lausanne) 10:1257873. (PMID: 10.3389/fmed.2023.125787337881634)
Wang L, Koch DD, Hill W, Abulafia A (2017) Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III Criteria for analyzing outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 43(8):999–1002. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.00328917430)
Voytsekhivskyy OV, Hoffer KJ, Savini G, Tutchenko LP, Hipolito-Fernandes D (2021) Clinical accuracy of 18 IOL power formulas in 241 short eyes. Curr Eye Res 46(12):1832–1843. (PMID: 10.1080/02713683.2021.193305634013799)
Hipolito-Fernandes D, Luis ME, Serras-Pereira R, Gil P, Maduro V, Feijao J, Alves N (2022) Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison. Br J Ophthalmol 106(3):349–355. (PMID: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-31782233229347)
Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL, Formula choice: Hoffer Q, (2011) Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(1):63–71. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.03221183100)
Carifi G, Aiello F, Zygoura V, Kopsachilis N, Maurino V (2015) Accuracy of the refractive prediction determined by multiple currently available intraocular lens power calculation formulas in small eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 159(3):577–583. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajo.2014.11.03625524494)
A. Shrivastava, P. Behera, R. Kacher, B.J.C.o. Kumar, Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm, 13 (2019) 1579–1586.
Eom Y, Kang S-Y, Song JS, Kim YY, Kim HM (2014) Comparison of Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae for intraocular lens power calculation according to the anterior chamber depth in short eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 157(4):818-824.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.017. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.01724345318)
Miraftab M, Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Khabazkhoob M, Rezvan F, Asgari S (2014) Effect of anterior chamber depth on the choice of intraocular lens calculation formula in patients with normal axial length. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 21(4):307–311. (PMID: 10.4103/0974-9233.142266253716354219221)
Hipolito-Fernandes D, Luis ME, Serras-Pereira R, Gil P, Maduro V, Feijao J, Alves N (2020) Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison. Br J Ophthalmol 106(3):349–355. (PMID: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-31782233229347)
Li Y, Guo C, Huang C, Jing L, Huang Y, Zhou R, Qiu K, Zhang M (2021) Development and Evaluation of the Prognostic Nomogram to Predict Refractive Error in Patients With Primary Angle-Closure Glaucoma Who Underwent Cataract Surgery Combined With Goniosynechialysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 8:749903. (PMID: 10.3389/fmed.2021.74990334977061)
Hou M, Ding Y, Liu L, Li J, Liu X, Wu M (2021) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 259(12):3739–3747. (PMID: 10.1007/s00417-021-05295-w34258655)
Connell BJ, Kane JX (2019) Comparison of the Kane formula with existing formulas for intraocular lens power selection. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 4(1):e000251. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000251311793966528763)
Rhiu S, Lee E, Kim T, Lee H, Kim C (2012) Power prediction for one-piece and three-piece intraocular lens implantation after cataract surgery in patients with chronic angle-closure glaucoma: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Acta Ophthalmol 90(8):e580–e585. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2012.02499.x22971184)
Nishide T, Hayakawa N, Kimura I, Nakanishi M, Yagi Y, Shibuya E, Mizuki N (2014) Postoperative refractive error following cataract surgery after the first attack of acute primary angle closure. Int Ophthalmol 34(4):805–808. (PMID: 10.1007/s10792-013-9878-424234424)
Korynta J, Bok J, Cendelin J, Michalova K (1999) Computer modeling of visual impairment caused by intraocular lens misalignment. J Cataract Refract Surg 25(1):100–105. (PMID: 10.1016/S0886-3350(99)80019-49888085)
Kim C-S, Kim KN, Kang TS, Jo YJ, Kim JY (2016) Changes in axial length and refractive error after noninvasive normalization of intraocular pressure from elevated levels. Am J Ophthalmol 163:132-139.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2015.12.004. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.12.00426701268)
Charalampidou S, Cassidy L, Ng E, Loughman J, Nolan J, Stack J, Beatty S (2010) Effect on refractive outcomes after cataract surgery of intraocular lens constant personalization using the Haigis formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(7):1081–1089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.12.050. (PMID: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.12.05020610083)
Elder MJ (2002) Predicting the refractive outcome after cataract surgery: the comparison of different IOLs and SRK-II v SRK-T. Br J Ophthalmol 86(6):620–622. (PMID: 10.1136/bjo.86.6.620120346811771157) - Grant Information: 200629235261845 Science and Technology Project of Shantou City, Guangdong, China
- Contributed Indexing: Keywords: Goniosynechialysis; Intraocular lens power; Phacoemulsification; Primary angle-closure glaucoma; Updated formula
- Publication Date: Date Created: 20241209 Date Completed: 20241209 Latest Revision: 20241209
- Publication Date: 20241210
- Accession Number: 10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4
- Accession Number: 39652241
- Source:
Contact CCPL
Copyright 2022 Charleston County Public Library Powered By EBSCO Stacks 3.3.0 [350.3] | Staff Login
No Comments.