Posters

Comparison of four intraocular lens power calculations for Japanese eyes with short and long axial lengths

Poster Details

First Author: Y.Mori JAPAN

Co Author(s):    T. Tokunaga   K. Kinoshita   T. Iwasaki   K. Minami   K. Kamiya   K. Miyata     

Abstract Details

Purpose:

There are several studies comparing the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations for Caucasian eyes. Whereas, there are morphological differences in Japanese eye such as axial length (AL), corneal power, and anterior chamber depth, so that outcomes of IOL power calculation would be influenced. This retrospective study was aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 4 IOL power calculations for Japanese eyes of short and long ALs.

Setting:

Miyata Eye Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan.

Methods:

Clinical records of 37 and 80 eyes of 117 cataractous patients with AL shorter than 22.0mm and longer than 26.0mm, respectively, were reviewed. With biometry data measured with a swept-source an optical coherence tomography biometer (OA-2000, TOMEY), Predicted postoperative refractions for implanted IOL were obtained in the use of the SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBF). Refractive errors from manifest refraction 1 month postoperatively were calculated and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) and rate of ±0.5D of errors for 4 calculations were compared in short and long eyes each.

Results:

The mean ALs were 21.73mm (range 21.14 to 21.99mm) in short eyes and 27.54mm (range 26.01 to 32.74mm) in long eyes. In short eyes, the MAE of SRK/T was lower than that of Haigis (P=0.022). The percentages within ±0.5D of errors with SRK/T were significantly higher than those of Haigis and Barrett Universal II (P=0.049, P=0.028). In long eyes, the MAE of Hill-RBF was lower than that of SRK/T (P=0.041). There were no statistically significant differences in the percentages within ±0.5D of errors between the 4 formulas.

Conclusions:

Best calculations for Japanese short and long eyes were SRK/T and Hill-RBF, respectively, and the results did not coincide with previous studies for Caucasian eyes. Our findings suggested that the adaptation for morphological differences in patients would be important.

Financial Disclosure:

None