Comparison of Different Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Eyes with Primary Angle Closure

Jinkun Liu; Yuhong Wang; Weiyi Huang; Fei Wang; Yazhang Xu; Yingying Xue; Zhimin Zhao; Luping Huang; Ruxin Gao

doi:10.1097/IJG.0000000000002430

Comparison of Different Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Eyes with Primary Angle Closure

J Glaucoma. 2024 May 21. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002430. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Jinkun Liu¹, Yuhong Wang^{1

2

3}, Weiyi Huang¹, Fei Wang¹, Yazhang Xu¹, Yingying Xue¹, Zhimin Zhao¹, Luping Huang¹, Ruxin Gao⁴

Affiliations

¹ Xiamen University Affiliated Xiamen Eye Center，Xiamen，China.
² NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University) Shanghai, China.
³ Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Science (Fudan University) Shanghai, China.
⁴ Eye Institute of Xiamen University, Medical College of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.

PMID: 38767494
DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002430

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of six intraocular lens power calculation formulas, Barrett Universal Ⅱ (BU Ⅱ), Haigis, Hoffer QST, HolladayⅠ, Kane and SRK/T, in eyes with primary angle closure disease (PACD).

Setting: Xiamen University Affiliated Xiamen Eye center, Xiamen, Fujian, China.

Design: Prospective case series.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with PACD and cataract and met the indication for cataract surgery were enrolled in the study. Six intraocular lens power calculation formulas were used to calculate refractive diopter. Percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50D, and the median absolute prediction error (MedAE) were compared to determine the accuracy of different formulas in PACD patients. Subgroup analysis was performed according to axial length (AL). The accuracy of Barrett Universal Ⅱ was compared between PACD patients and age-related cataract patients.

Results: 105 patients (105 eyes) with PACD and 35 patients (35 eyes) with age-related cataract were enrolled in the study. Haigis, Kane and Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula achieved a comparable outcome and outperformed over the other three formulas in PACD patients. Subgroup analysis showed that the group with long AL has lower values of MedAE. PE was significantly positively correlated with AL and negatively correlated with relative lens position (RLP) when calculated use Barrett Universal Ⅱ and Kane.

Conclusions: Haigis, Kane and Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula achieved a comparable outcome and outperformed over the other three formulas in PACD patients.