Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/biometry-formula-choice-and-cataract-refractive-outcomes-response-Ic0S5bTXlH
- 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_2.x
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
With respect, I would point out what Dr Aristodemou et al . already know: that an editorial is the opportunity to offer perspective and opinion, often followed by suggestions for improvement. I am well aware of what the literature says. If the fundamental premise of the articles cited was completely correct, such an editorial would never have been written. I do not disagree with the observation that for ‘normal’ eyes, at or near schematic eye parameters, just about any generation theoretical formula will give good results. However, it cannot be disputed that all third‐generation formulas suffer from the same inherent shortcoming: broad conclusions must be made from limited information. The reason why the majority of patients do well with formulas such as SRK/T is that most of the time the four component parts of the human eye fall within a normal range. The fundamental flaw in using a two‐variable formula for all eyes is that the formula is unable to ascertain whether or not an eye is unusual. For example, two eyes with the same axial length and the same central corneal power, but with very different anterior segments may require different intraocular lens (IOL) powers for emmetropia
Journal
Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 2010
@Phil_Robichaud
@deepthiw
@JoseServera