ESCRS - PO467 - Evaluation Of Phakic Iol Power Calculation Using The New Lhc Formula And Comparison With Four Conventional Methods

Evaluation Of Phakic Iol Power Calculation Using The New Lhc Formula And Comparison With Four Conventional Methods

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: PO467 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/rpqx-4m20

Authors: Jascha Wendelstein* 1 , Sarah Hinterberger 2 , Peter Hoffmann 3 , Nino Hirnschall 2 , Michael Koss 4 , Paul Jirak 2 , Achim Langenbucher 5 , Matthias Bolz 2

1Department of Ophthalmology,Kepler University hospital,Linz,Austria;Institute of experimental ophthalmology,Saarland University,Homburg,Germany;Department of Ophthalmology,Institut für Refraktive- und Ophthalmo Chirurgie,Zurich,Switzerland, 2Department of ophthalmology,Kepler University hospital,Linz,Austria, 3Augen-und Laserklinik,Castrop-Rauxel,Germany, 4Department of Ophthalmology,Augenzentrum Nymphenburger Höfe ,Munich,Germany, 5Institute of experimental ophthalmology,Saarland University,Homburg,Germany

Purpose

Evaluating the accuracy of phakic intraocular lens power calculation in a middle European patient cohort.

Setting

Eyelaser Clinic, Linz, Austria

Methods

 

Methodology: Single center, single surgeon retrospective consecutive case series. Inclusion of patients after uneventful phakic IOL surgery implanting 92 non-toric and toric Visian ICL model V4c. OCOS Software, JPhakic Software, Olsen-Feingold formula, Holladay Formula and Linz-Homburg-Castrop formula were compared. When possible, lens constants were optimized for the patient cohort. Data of one single eye per patient was included. Outcome measures were: mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error, mean prediction error with standard deviation and median prediction error, as well as percentage of eyes with an absolute prediction error within limits of 0.25 Dpt, 0.5 Dpt, 0.75 Dpt and 1.0 Dpt.

Results

A total of 92 eyes of 92 patients were assessed. There were no statistically significant differences for MAE. The Olsen-Feingold formula achieved significantly less eyes within a prediction error of 1.0 Dpt than all other methods.

Conclusions

In our patient cohort OCOS Software, JPhakic Software, Holladay and Linz-Homburg-Castrop formulae showed equal results and can be cross-checked.