• Users Online: 89
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 49-53

Comparison of predictability of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for axial hyperopic patients undergoing cataract surgery using intraocular lens master

Department of Ophthalmology, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Tarek A Hafez
Department of Ophthalmology, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 22206
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCRS.JCRS_11_17

Rights and Permissions

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the predictability of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas [Sanders–Retzlaff–Kraff (SRK) II formula, SRK-T formula, Haigis formula, Hoffer Q formula] in axial hyperopic patients [axial length (AL) <22 mm] undergoing cataract surgery using IOL master. Patients and methods This study comprised 40 eyes of 26 patients who presented with cataract and axial eye length less than 22 mm. Before phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, AL measurement, keratometry measurement and anterior chamber depth measurement using the IOL master were done. IOL power was calculated using four different formulas (SRK-II, SRK-T, Haigis, Hoffer Q). Actual stabilized postoperative refraction (spherical equivalent) 1 month after surgery was measured and the accuracy of the four different formulas was compared. Differences between actual postoperative refraction and predicted refraction using the different formulas were analyzed. P value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Furthermore, the percentage of eyes with mean absolute prediction error (MAE) within ±0.5 and ±1.0 diopter (D) for each formula was estimated, as well as the correlation coefficient (r) between the AL and MAE for each formula. Results There was a significant difference between the MAE of the four formulas, except there was no significant difference between the MAE of SRK-T and SRK-II. The Haigis formula had a smallest MAE of 0.47±0.36 D, then Hoffer Q with a MAE of 0.87±0.51 D, and then SRK-T with a MAE of 1.38±0.89 D. The SRK-II had the largest MAE of 1.70±1.06 D. The Haigis formula predicted more eyes with MAE within ±0.5 and ±1.0 D of the predicted spherical equivalent compared with other formulas. The correlation between AL and AE has shown a negative r value and P value of less than 0.05 for all formulas. Conclusion The Haigis formula provides more accurate results concerning the postoperative target of refraction in eyes with an AL of less than 22.0 mm. Hoffer Q could be also used as an alternative.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded239    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal