Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes

Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes We read with interest the editorial by Dr Warren Hill. We agree there is evidence that optical biometry allows improved precision of refractive outcomes compared with applanation and perhaps immersion ultrasound axial length measurement. We also agree that the benchmark standards suggested by Gale et al . in 2006 should be raised, in our experience to 70% within ±0.5 dioptre (D) and 95% within ±1.0 D when using IOL Master biometry and this level of precision has been observed by other groups using third‐generation biometry formulae. Where we disagree with Dr Hill is in his assertion, without quoting any scientific studies, that third‐generation biometry formulae (Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay 1) are worse predictors of postoperative refraction than fourth‐generation formulae (Haigis, Holladay 2 and Olsen). Although these newer formulae may offer benefits in individual eyes with unusual anatomy of the anterior or posterior segments the published literature fails to demonstrate any additional benefit over third‐generation formulae for the eyes with non‐extreme axial length. Navarez et al . performed a comparative analysis on 643 eyes and found no statistically significant differences in mean absolute error (MAE) between the four formulae in any of the axial length intervals. Hoffer compared http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology Wiley

Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/biometry-formula-choice-and-cataract-refractive-outcomes-0L5EaH3JSP
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
ISSN
1442-6404
eISSN
1442-9071
D.O.I.
10.1111/j.1442-9071.2010.2340_1.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We read with interest the editorial by Dr Warren Hill. We agree there is evidence that optical biometry allows improved precision of refractive outcomes compared with applanation and perhaps immersion ultrasound axial length measurement. We also agree that the benchmark standards suggested by Gale et al . in 2006 should be raised, in our experience to 70% within ±0.5 dioptre (D) and 95% within ±1.0 D when using IOL Master biometry and this level of precision has been observed by other groups using third‐generation biometry formulae. Where we disagree with Dr Hill is in his assertion, without quoting any scientific studies, that third‐generation biometry formulae (Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay 1) are worse predictors of postoperative refraction than fourth‐generation formulae (Haigis, Holladay 2 and Olsen). Although these newer formulae may offer benefits in individual eyes with unusual anatomy of the anterior or posterior segments the published literature fails to demonstrate any additional benefit over third‐generation formulae for the eyes with non‐extreme axial length. Navarez et al . performed a comparative analysis on 643 eyes and found no statistically significant differences in mean absolute error (MAE) between the four formulae in any of the axial length intervals. Hoffer compared

Journal

Clinical & Experimental OphthalmologyWiley

Published: Jul 1, 2010

References

  • Intraocular lens power calculations: are we stuck in the past?
    Hill, Hill
  • Comparison of refractive outcomes using immersion ultrasound biometry and IOLMaster biometry
    Landers, Landers; Goggin, Goggin

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off