Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Hill, Warren E
Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology , Volume 38 (5) – Jul 1, 2010
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/biometry-formula-choice-and-cataract-refractive-outcomes-response-Ic0S5bTXlH
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
1442-6404
eISSN
1442-9071
DOI
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

References

  • Biometry formula choice and cataract refractive outcomes
    Aristodemou, P; Knox Cartwright, NE; Sparrow, JM; Johnston, RL
  • Intraocular lens power calculations: are we stuck in the past?
    Hill, WE
  • Intraocular lens power calculation with an improved anterior chamber depth algorithm
    Olsen, T; Corydon, L; Gimbel, H
  • Standardizing constants for ultrasonic biometry, keratometry, and intraocular lens power calculations
    Holladay, JT
  • Jahrbuch der Augenheilkunde 1995, Optik und Refraktion
    Haigis, W