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
. 2017 Nov 1;7(1):14852.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14171-9.

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle

Lei Lin  1 , Pingjun Chang  1 , Jialu Xie  1 , Zhangliang Li  1 , Hongfang Zhang  1 , Fan Lu  2 , Yun-E Zhao  3
Affiliations

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle

Lei Lin et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is always a challenge in ophthalmology, and unoptimized process may lead to inaccurate refractive outcomes. Quality control circle (QCC) has shown its success in many fields as a process management tool. However, its efficacy in ophthalmology remains unclear. Here we utilized the QCC method to optimize the process and evaluate its efficacy in improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation. After the QCC application, the percentage of eyes with achieved refractive outcomes within 0.5 diopter significantly increased from 63.2% to 80.8% calculated by Haigis formula and 59.2% to 75.8% by SRK/T formula in patients with normal axial length (AL) (22 mm ≤ AL < 26 mm). Although there were no statistically significant differences in patients with long AL by the two formulas (p = 0.886 and 0.726), we achieved an accuracy of 75% with the application of the PhacoOptics software, which was significantly higher than that using the other two formulas (p < 0.001). Our findings indicated that QCC optimized and standardized the process of IOL power calculation, thus improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Fishbone analytical diagram. This fishbone diagram includes main reasons that lead to the low accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Protocol of the quality control circle. The ten steps and PDCA (plan, do, check and act) flow of the quality control circle.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Standard flow of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation process. After quality control circle, the process of the IOL power calculation was standardized for cataract patients with different axial lengths (AL).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica. 2007;85:472–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2007.00879.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M. Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (London, England) 2009;23:149–152. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702954. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens power selection. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2017;43:333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cooke DL, Cooke TL. Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2016;42:1157–1164. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.029. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2011;37:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.032. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types