Effect of anterior chamber depth on predictive accuracy of seven intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length less than 22 mm

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate whether different anterior chamber depth (ACD) affects the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) less than 22 mm.

Methods

Eighty-five eyes of 85 patients with AL less than 22 mm were included in this retrospective study, which were divided into three groups: Group 1, ACD less than 2.4 mm; Group 2, ACD between 2.4 and 2.9 mm; and Group 3, ACD greater than 2.9 mm. Optical biometry with partial coherence interferometry was performed in all cases. The median absolute error (MedAE) was compared by Friedman’s test, using the optimized lens constant, among seven formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T) in each group.

Results

Friedman’s test showed no significant difference in MedAE among all formulas in Groups 1 and 3. However, as the Haigis formula had the highest MedAE and lowest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter, it is least preferred in Group 1. On the contrary, in Group 3 it fared the best, having the least MedAE and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 Diopter. In Group 2, Friedman’s test gave significant difference, and post-hoc analysis showed statistical superiority of Haigis over the Holladay 1 (p=0.02), Holladay 2 (p=0.01), Hill-RBF (p=0.04), and SRK/T (p=0.02) formulas. However, there was no statistical difference between the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulas.

Conclusion

Considering the ACD in eyes with AL less than 22 mm, Haigis is the preferred formula while SRK/T proved to be the worst formula in Groups 2 and 3.

Keywords:

• short axial length
• optical biometry
• anterior chamber depth
• intraocular lens formulas
• optimized lens constant

Ethics statement

The patient data confidentiality was maintained and their consent to review medical records was not required by the institute’s ethics committee as the study was retrospective in nature.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.