Intraocular lens power calculation for plus and minus lenses in high myopia using partial coherence interferometry

• Published in: International ophthalmology Vol. 41; no. 5; pp. 1585 - 1592
• Main Authors: Fuest, Matthias, Plange, Niklas, Kuerten, David, Schellhase, Hannah, Mazinani, Babac A. E., Walter, Peter, Kohnen, Stephan, Widder, Randolf A., Roessler, Gernot
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.05.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Acuity; Eye (anatomy); Interferometry; Intraocular lenses; Mathematical analysis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Myopia; Ophthalmology; Original Paper; Refraction; Visual acuity; Cataract; Calculation; Pathologic; Biometry; Myopia; IOL
• ISSN: 0165-5701; 1573-2630
• DOI: 10.1007/s10792-020-01684-y

Purpose We assessed the accuracy of lens power calculation in highly myopic patients implanting plus and minus intraocular lenses (IOL). Methods We included 58 consecutive, myopic eyes with an axial length (AL) > 26.0 mm, undergoing phacoemulsification and IOL implantation following biometry using the IOLMaster 500. For lens power calculation, the Haigis formula was used in all cases. For comparison, refraction was back-calculated using the Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Holladay I, Hill-RBF (RBF) and SRK/T formulae. Results The mean axial length was 30.17 ± 2.67 mm. Barrett (80%), Haigis (87%) and RBF (82%) showed comparable numbers of IOLs within 1 diopter (D) of target refraction. Visual acuity (BSCVA) improved ( p  < 0.001) from 0.60 ± 0.35 to 0.29 ± 0.29 logMAR (> 28-days postsurgery). The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett 0.49 D, Haigis 0.38, RBF 0.44 and SRK/T 0.44 did not differ. The MedAE of Haigis was significantly smaller than Holladay (0.75 D; p  = 0.01). All median postoperative refractive errors (MedRE) differed significantly with the exception of Haigis to SRK/T ( p  = 0.6): Barrett − 0.33 D, Haigis 0.25, Holladay 0.63, RBF 0.04 and SRK/T 0.13. Barrett, Haigis, Holladay and RBF showed a tendency for higher MedAEs in their minus compared to plus IOLs, which only reached significance for SRK/T ( p  = 0.001). Barrett ( p  < 0.001) and RBF ( p  = 0.04) showed myopic, SRK/T ( p  = 002) a hyperopic shift in their minus IOLs. Conclusions In highly myopic patients, the accuracies of Barrett, Haigis and RBF were comparable with a tendency for higher MedAEs in minus IOLs. Barrett and RBF showed myopic, SRK/T a hyperopic shift in their minus IOLs.