### Abstract

Background: To evaluate how differences in ocular biometry affects the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Haigis intraocular lens power calculation formulae predictions. Methods: This study was performed on 91 eyes of 91 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Ocular biometry values were measured using the IOL Master 500, and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. We calculated the expected difference (ED) of each 3rd generation formula from the Haigis formula by subtracting the predicted refraction of the Haigis formula from the predicted refraction of each 3rd generation formula. Post-operative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured at 1 month after surgery using the IOL master. We calculated errors of each formula by subtracting predicted from manifest refraction at post-operative 1 month. Correlation analysis was performed between ocular biometry values, formula expectation values, formula errors and absolute formula errors. Results: Multiple regression analysis revealed that preoperative ACD was the only significant factor for ED prediction in all of the 3rd generation formulas. For mean errors, axial length and post-operative 1-month change of ACD (delta ACD) correlated significantly with the errors in all 3rd generation formulas, but not with errors of the Haigis formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) of the formulas were 0.40 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.37 D for the Holladay formula, 0.34 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.41 D for the Haigis formula. The MAE of the formulas were 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.50 ± 0.50 D for the Holladay formula, 0.47 ± 0.51 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Haigis formula. Conclusion: Regarding ED between the third generation and Haigis formulas, preoperative ACD demonstrated the greatest influence. Calculating mean absolute errors of the formulas, all IOL formulas showed excellent and comparable accuracy. Post-operative change (delta) of ACD correlated significantly with errors of third generation formulas according to simulated ACD.

Original language | English (US) |
---|---|

Article number | 62 |

Journal | BMC Ophthalmology |

Volume | 17 |

Issue number | 1 |

DOIs | |

State | Published - May 2 2017 |

### Fingerprint

### Keywords

- Anterior chamber depth
- IOL formula
- Ocular biometry

### ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Ophthalmology

### Cite this

*BMC Ophthalmology*,

*17*(1), [62]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y

**The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas.** / Jeong, Jinho; Song, Han; Lee, Jimmy K.; Chuck, Roy S.; Kwon, Ji Won.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

*BMC Ophthalmology*, vol. 17, no. 1, 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas

AU - Jeong, Jinho

AU - Song, Han

AU - Lee, Jimmy K.

AU - Chuck, Roy S.

AU - Kwon, Ji Won

PY - 2017/5/2

Y1 - 2017/5/2

N2 - Background: To evaluate how differences in ocular biometry affects the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Haigis intraocular lens power calculation formulae predictions. Methods: This study was performed on 91 eyes of 91 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Ocular biometry values were measured using the IOL Master 500, and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. We calculated the expected difference (ED) of each 3rd generation formula from the Haigis formula by subtracting the predicted refraction of the Haigis formula from the predicted refraction of each 3rd generation formula. Post-operative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured at 1 month after surgery using the IOL master. We calculated errors of each formula by subtracting predicted from manifest refraction at post-operative 1 month. Correlation analysis was performed between ocular biometry values, formula expectation values, formula errors and absolute formula errors. Results: Multiple regression analysis revealed that preoperative ACD was the only significant factor for ED prediction in all of the 3rd generation formulas. For mean errors, axial length and post-operative 1-month change of ACD (delta ACD) correlated significantly with the errors in all 3rd generation formulas, but not with errors of the Haigis formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) of the formulas were 0.40 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.37 D for the Holladay formula, 0.34 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.41 D for the Haigis formula. The MAE of the formulas were 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.50 ± 0.50 D for the Holladay formula, 0.47 ± 0.51 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Haigis formula. Conclusion: Regarding ED between the third generation and Haigis formulas, preoperative ACD demonstrated the greatest influence. Calculating mean absolute errors of the formulas, all IOL formulas showed excellent and comparable accuracy. Post-operative change (delta) of ACD correlated significantly with errors of third generation formulas according to simulated ACD.

AB - Background: To evaluate how differences in ocular biometry affects the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Haigis intraocular lens power calculation formulae predictions. Methods: This study was performed on 91 eyes of 91 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Ocular biometry values were measured using the IOL Master 500, and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. We calculated the expected difference (ED) of each 3rd generation formula from the Haigis formula by subtracting the predicted refraction of the Haigis formula from the predicted refraction of each 3rd generation formula. Post-operative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured at 1 month after surgery using the IOL master. We calculated errors of each formula by subtracting predicted from manifest refraction at post-operative 1 month. Correlation analysis was performed between ocular biometry values, formula expectation values, formula errors and absolute formula errors. Results: Multiple regression analysis revealed that preoperative ACD was the only significant factor for ED prediction in all of the 3rd generation formulas. For mean errors, axial length and post-operative 1-month change of ACD (delta ACD) correlated significantly with the errors in all 3rd generation formulas, but not with errors of the Haigis formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) of the formulas were 0.40 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.37 D for the Holladay formula, 0.34 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.41 D for the Haigis formula. The MAE of the formulas were 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.50 ± 0.50 D for the Holladay formula, 0.47 ± 0.51 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Haigis formula. Conclusion: Regarding ED between the third generation and Haigis formulas, preoperative ACD demonstrated the greatest influence. Calculating mean absolute errors of the formulas, all IOL formulas showed excellent and comparable accuracy. Post-operative change (delta) of ACD correlated significantly with errors of third generation formulas according to simulated ACD.

KW - Anterior chamber depth

KW - IOL formula

KW - Ocular biometry

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018324899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018324899&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y

DO - 10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 28464806

AN - SCOPUS:85018324899

VL - 17

JO - BMC Ophthalmology

JF - BMC Ophthalmology

SN - 1471-2415

IS - 1

M1 - 62

ER -