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
. 2024 Dec 9;45(1):2.
doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4.

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis

Yongdong Lin #  1 , Yanlin Yin #  1 , Chukai Huang  1 , Tsz Kin Ng  1 , Kunliang Qiu  1 , Yueting Ma  1 , Di Ma  2
Affiliations

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis

Yongdong Lin et al. Int Ophthalmol. .

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).

Methods: Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.

Results: A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.

Keywords: Goniosynechialysis; Intraocular lens power; Phacoemulsification; Primary angle-closure glaucoma; Updated formula.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict interests. Ethics approval: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Joint Shantou International Eye Center (JSIEC) of Shantou University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Shantou city, China). The study followed the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval number: EC20200609(6)-P12. Informed consent: Because this study was retrospective, informed consent for inclusion was waived.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Y. Liang, D. Friedman, Q. Zhou, X. Yang, L. Sun, L. Guo, D. Chang, L. Lian, N. Wang, J.I.o. , v. science, Prevalence and characteristics of primary angle-closure diseases in a rural adult Chinese population: the Handan Eye Study, 52(12) (2011) 8672-9
    1. M. Walland, R. Thomas, Role of clear lens extraction in adult angle closure disease: a review, Clin Exp Ophthalmol 39(1) (2011) 61–4; quiz 92.
    1. Tham CC, Kwong YY, Leung DY, Lam SW, Li FC, Chiu TY, Chan JC, Chan CH, Poon AS, Yick DW, Chi CC, Lam DS, Lai JS (2008) Phacoemulsification versus combined phacotrabeculectomy in medically controlled chronic angle closure glaucoma with cataract. Ophthalmology 115(12):2167–2173 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hayashi K, Hayashi H, Nakao F, Hayashi F (2001) Effect of cataract surgery on intraocular pressure control in glaucoma patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 27(11):1779–1786 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Azuara-Blanco A, Burr J, Ramsay C, Cooper D, Foster PJ, Friedman DS, Scotland G, Javanbakht M, Cochrane C, Norrie J (2016) E.s. group, Effectiveness of early lens extraction for the treatment of primary angle-closure glaucoma (EAGLE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388(10052):1389–1397 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources