Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 451–455 | Cite as

Prediction of refractive outcome after cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry: comparison of SRK/T and Haigis formulae

  • Rohit Sharma
  • P. Maharajan
  • S. Kotta
  • S. Maharajan
Original Paper

Abstract

To compare the accuracy of the predictions of SRK/T and Haigis formulae, incorporating all the parameters calculated using Zeiss IOLMaster Scan, based on partial coherence interferometry, and to analyse the effect of updating or optimisation of the constants on the post-operative result. A retrospective study was done on 51 consecutive patients, who underwent phacoemulsification by a single surgeon with a temporal corneal incision and a standard Alcon Acrysof MA30 implant in the bag. The pre-operative data were measured using Zeiss IOLMaster scan, and the IOL power calculations were done using both SRK/T and Haigis formulae. The final implant power selection was based on SRK/T predictions. The patients were divided into three groups depending on the axial length, and the post-operative results were analysed at 4 weeks. The difference between the predicted value and the post-operative spherical equivalent was calculated for both the formulae, and a paired t test used for significance. The axial length ranged from 20.93 to 25.16 mm. The error for Haigis was less compared to SRK/T overall and SRK/T resulted in an average hypermetropia 0.69 D and Haigis resulted in an average myopia of 0.16 D. The comparison between SRK/T and Haigis and the updated version of both using the paired t test shows a statistically significant difference, the p values being <0.03 and <0.01, respectively. The updated Haigis Formula with the optimised constants was significantly more accurate than SRK/T formula.

Keywords

Cataract surgery Biometry IOL calculation formulae Prediction error 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Mr. Alan Rotchford SpR, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, for statistical assistance.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests and have not received research funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Eleftheriadis H (2003) IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol 87:960–963PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schachar RA, Levy NS, Bonney RC (1980) Accuracy of intraocular lens powers calculated from A-scan biometry with the echo-oculometer. Ophthalmic Surg 11:856–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gale RP, Saha N, Johnston RL (2004) National biometry audit. Eye 18:63–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Olsen T, Thim K, Corydon L (1991) Accuracy of the newer generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long and short eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 17:187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verhulst E, Vrijghem JC (2001) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations using the Zeiss IOLMaster. A prospective study. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 281:61–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hoffman PC, Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB (1997) Significance of optic formula selection for postoperative refraction after cataract operation. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 211:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC (1990) Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 16:333–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanders DR, Retzlaff JA, Kraff MC, Gimbel HV, Marsha G, Raanan MS (1990) Comparison of the SRK/T formula and other regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 16:341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richards SC, Oslen RJ, Richards WL, Brodstein RS, Hale PN (1985) Clinical evaluation of six intraocular lens calculation formulas. J Am Intraocul Implant Soc 11:153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffer KJ (1980) Biometry of 7500 cataractous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 90:360–368PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Medisoft ophthalmology electronic patient record. www.medisoft.co.uk, Leeds
  13. 13.
    Holladay IOL Consultant IOL calculation software for ophthalmologists. www.docholladay.com/iolprogram
  14. 14.
    Hoffer Eye Lab Inc. KDHofferMD@aol.comGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B (2000) Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 238:765–773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, Heinzl H, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF (2001) Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:861–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohit Sharma
    • 1
  • P. Maharajan
    • 2
  • S. Kotta
    • 2
  • S. Maharajan
    • 3
  1. 1.Kings College HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Diana, Princess of Wales HospitalGrimsbyUK
  3. 3.Queens Medical Centre, NHS TrustNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations