Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Oct;15(5):432-4.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2011.05.021.

Comparison of aphakic refraction formulas for secondary in-the-bag intraocular lens power estimation in children

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of aphakic refraction formulas for secondary in-the-bag intraocular lens power estimation in children

Ghada Abdel-Hafez et al. J AAPOS. 2011 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Intraocular lens (IOL) formulas based on aphakic refraction alone have been proposed as an alternative to biometry-based formulas. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative accuracy of these simplified formulas.

Methods: Records of patients who received secondary in-the-bag (IOL) implants and for whom aphakic refraction was obtainable were retrospectively studied. The formulas for IOL power calculation by Hug (J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2004;41;209-11) and Khan and by AlGaeed (Br J Ophthalmol 2006;90:1458-60; modified to account for greater K values in our population) were compared with the biometry-based Holladay 1 formula by calculating the absolute prediction error for each.

Results: Twenty eyes met the inclusion criteria. The average age at IOL implantation was 4.8 ± 3.4 years. The mean of the absolute value of the prediction error when we used the Hug's formula was 2.4 ± 2.1 D; with Khan's formula, 2.4 ± 2.0 D; and with biometry, 1.6 ± 1.4 D. None of these differences was statistically significant (paired t test: Hug vs Khan, P = 0.9; biometry vs Hug, P = 0.3; biometry vs Khan, P = 0.2). The absolute prediction error was more than 2 D in 8 of 20 eyes (40%) when we used Hug's formula, 11 of 20 eyes (55%) with Khan's formula, and 5 of 20 eyes (25%) with biometry.

Conclusions: Although the 0.8 D reduction in accuracy of the refraction-based formulas was not statistically significant, we recommend continued use of biometry-based formulas for IOL power calculation. Aphakic refraction may be used to confirm IOL power prediction when biometry is difficult.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources