Advertisement

Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value

  • Sabong Srivannaboon
  • Chareenun ChirapapaisanEmail author
  • Niphon Chirapapaisan
  • Buntitar Lertsuwanroj
  • Mathinee Chongchareon
Cataract

Abstract

Background

The accuracy of the Holladay 2 (H2) formula is well-documented. This formula requires seven variables to estimate effective lens position (ELP) for the IOL power calculation. The lens thickness (LT) value is one of the required variables. Interestingly, the IOLMaster, which is one of the most commonly used optical biometers, can provide all the required ocular variables except LT value. It has become a pertinent issue to evaluate the accuracy of theH2 formula when it is used without the LT value. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results when using the H2 formula, without the LT value, and compare such results to those obtained using the Haigis formula and the Hoffer Q formula.

Methods

The Institutional review board (IRB) gave their approval for the conduct of this prospective comparative study. One hundred and sixty-three eyes of 143 cataract patients from the Ophthalmology Department, Siriraj Hospital, Thailand were recruited. All eyes were measured using the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) for keratometry (K), axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and horizontal white-to-white (WTW) corneal diameter. Then, the LT measurement was obtained by A-scan ultrasonography (Quantel Axis-II, Quantel Medical, USA). Every patient underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification by a single surgeon (NC) with a single technique using a single IOL model. Post-operative refraction was obtained at 3 months. The mean absolute errors (MAEs), median absolute errors (MedAEs) and percentage of the eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D of predicted refraction was calculated for H2 formula both with and without LT input, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formula.

The results were also classified into a group of short AL (<22.0 mm), average AL (22.0 to 24.5 mm) and long AL (>24.5 mm).

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in either MAEs or MedAEs of all formulas in all AL groups including the H2 with and without LT. There was a trend toward lower MAEs and MedAEs for H2 in the long AL group. Percentage of the eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D of predicted refraction were similar in all AL groups.

Conclusion

The preliminary results of this study showed that the H2 formula performed well even without the LT value. It was comparable to the Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas.

Keywords

Holladay 2 formula Lens thickness IOL power IOLMaster 

Notes

Financial support

No conflicting relationship exists for any author.

References

  1. 1.
    Narváez J, Zimmerman G, Stulting RD, Chang DH (2006) Accuracy of intraocular lens power prediction using the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 32(12):2050–2053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trivedi RH, Wilson ME, Reardon W (2011) Accuracy of the Holladay 2 intraocular lens formula for pediatric eyes in the absence of preoperative refraction. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(7):1239–1243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bang S, Edell E, Yu Q, Pratzer K, Stark W (2011) Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology 118(3):503–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ghanem AA, El-Sayed HM (2010) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in high myopia. Oman J Ophthalmol 3(3):126–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mahdavi S, Holladay J (2011) IOLMaster 500 and integration of the Holladay2 Formula for intraocular lens calculations. Eur Ophthalmic Rev 5(2):134–135Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O (2011) Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(3):513–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srivannaboon S, Tanehsakdi M (2007) Performance of conventional biometry vs. integrated laser interferometry with keratometry device in intraocular lens measurement. J Med Assoc Thai 90(11):2392–2396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffmann PC, Hütz WW (2010) Analysis of biometry and prevalence data for corneal astigmatism in 23,239 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(9):1479–1485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ioannides A (2011) Holladay 2 formula. Ophthalmology 118(12):2525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoffer KJ (2000) Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 26:1233–1237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aristodemou P, Cartwright NK, Sparrow JM, Johnston R (2011) Intraocular lens calculations. Ophthalmology 118(6):1221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raymond S, Favilla I, Santamaria L (2009) Comparing ultrasound biometry with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculations: a randomized study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50(6):2547–2552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL (2011) Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes aftercataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(1):63–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petermeier K, Gekeler F, Messias A, Spitzer MS, Haigis W, Szurman P (2009) Intraocular lens power calculation and optimized constants for highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1575–1581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wang J-K, Hu C-Y, Chang S-W (2008) Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMaster and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gavin EA, Hammond CJ (2008) Intraocular lens power calculation in short eyes. Eye 22:935–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(2):187–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joo J, Whang WJ, Oh TH, Kang KD, Kim HS, Moon JI (2011) Accurracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma. Korean J Ophthalmol 25(6):375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL (2011) Intraocular lens formula constant optimization and partial coherence interferometry biometry: Refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(1):50–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fotedar R, Wang JJ, Burlutsky G, Morgan IG, Rose K, Wong TY, Mitchell P (2010) Distribution of axial length and ocular biometry measured using partial coherence laser interferometry (IOL Master) in an older white population. Ophthalmology 117(3):417–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93(7):949–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabong Srivannaboon
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chareenun Chirapapaisan
    • 2
    Email author
  • Niphon Chirapapaisan
    • 1
  • Buntitar Lertsuwanroj
    • 1
  • Mathinee Chongchareon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand
  2. 2.SiLASIK Center, Department of Ophthalmology, Siriraj HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations