Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes: response

Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes: response 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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology Wiley

Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes: response

Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology, Volume 38 (5) – Jul 1, 2010

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 OphthalmologyWiley

Published: Jul 1, 2010

References

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 folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off