BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tromans, C
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, I C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tromans, C
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, I C
Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:939-941 ( August )

Scientific correspondence

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in paediatric cataract surgery C Tromansa b, P M Haighc, S Biswasa, I C Lloyda b

a Department of Paediatric Ophthalmology, Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK, b University Department of Ophthalmology, Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK, c Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK

Correspondence to: Mr Lloyd chrislloyd{at}wilmslow1.demon.co.uk

Accepted for publication 27 February 2001

AIMS---To determine the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in a group of pseudophakic children.
METHODS---A retrospective analysis of biometric and refractive data was performed on 52 eyes of 40 infants and children, who successfully underwent cataract extraction and IOL implantation. The following parameters were included: age at the time of surgery, keratometry, axial length, estimated refraction, and the power of IOL implanted. The postoperative refractive outcome was taken as the spherical equivalent of the refraction at 3 months after surgery. The prediction error was taken as the absolute difference between the estimated and actual postoperative refraction. The data were analysed to assess the effects of age at the time of surgery, keratometry, and axial length on the accuracy of calculation of IOL power.
RESULTS---For the overall group the mean and median prediction errors were 1.40 D and 0.84 D (SD 1.60). The mean and median prediction errors in eyes with axial lengths >= 20 mm were 1.07 D and 0.71 D (SD 0.98) and in eyes <20 mm were 2.63 D and 2.61 D (SD 2.65). The mean and median prediction errors in eyes in children aged >= 36 months were 1.06 D and 0.68 D (SD 1.02) and in children aged <36 months was 2.56 D and 2.29 D (SD 2.50). The differences between the prediction errors for both axial length and age were statistically significant (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS---For the overall group IOL power calculation is satisfactory. In eyes with axial lengths less than 20 mm and in children less than 36 months of age larger errors can arise. This study demonstrates the need for an IOL formula specifically designed for paediatric use.


© 2001 by British Journal of Ophthalmology



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J L Ashworth, A P Maino, S Biswas, and I C Lloyd
Refractive outcomes after primary intraocular lens implantation in infants
Br. J. Ophthalmol., May 1, 2007; 91(5): 596 - 599.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
J-S Barry, P Ewings, C Gibbon, and A G Quinn
Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with primary lens implantation in infants
Br. J. Ophthalmol., November 1, 2006; 90(11): 1386 - 1389.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Ophthalmol.Home page
N A Rowe, S Biswas, and I C Lloyd
Primary IOL implantation in children: a risk analysis of foldable acrylic v PMMA lenses
Br. J. Ophthalmol., April 1, 2004; 88(4): 481 - 485.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2001 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.