Eyeworld

two groups was drawn at 6 D in this study, but it is unclear whether a different power IOL would have yielded similar results. Overall, the number of patients with low power IOLs is rare and negative power IOL even rarer (only 5 patients in this study). Future studies with larger sample sizes should be repeated for this specific population. Neverthe- less, it appears that unadjusted stan- dard formulas are sufficient for the majority of high axial myopes, and several options are available for even the most extreme myopic eyes. EW References 1. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for in- traocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000; 238:765–773. 2. Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, Kugelberg M, Zetterstrom C, Lundstrom M. Aiming for emmetropia after cataract surgery: Swedish National Cataract Register study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38:1181–1186. 3. Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW. Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMas- ter and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34:262–267. 4. Wang L, Shirayama M, Ma XJ, Kohnen T, Koch DD. Optimizing intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with axial lengths above 25.0 mm. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011; 37:2018–2027. 5. Zaldivar R, Shultz MC, Davidorf JM, Holl- aday JT. Intraocular lens power calculations in patients with extreme myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26:668–674. 6. User Group for Laser Interference Biometry. Optimized constants for the Zeiss IOLMaster. Accessed November 1, 2012, www.augen- klinik.uni-wuerzburg.de/ulib/c1.htm. 7. Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation in ex- treme myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35:906–911. Contact information Patel: Vivek.Patel@med.usc.edu See more patients in the same amount of time without increasing staff. Varitronics, the leader in Non-Verbal Interoffice Communications for over four decades, offers the most feature-rich systems on the market today. Our custom designed Call Systems will streamline the way you work so that you can decrease your patient's waiting time while increasing your staff's efficiency. Call, email, or visit our web site today to see how easy it is to benefit from the efficiency of Varitronics' Call System. 800.345.1244 email:varimed@varitronics.com www.varitronics.com Increase patient flow and overall practice efficiency. Increase profits. Varitronics can show you how! of Var Inte fou sys des the d Call Systems are available for both new and existing construction. Leading the way in Interoffice Communications Wa l l p a n e l a n d p a g e r C S 2 0 0 0 W i r e l e s s S y s t e m SEE US AT ASCRS AT BOOTH 122 C M Y CM MY CY CMY K Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with axial lengths above 26.0 mm: comparison of various formulas and methods Adi Abulafia, MD, Graham D. Barrett, MD, Michael Rotenberg, MD, Guy Kleinmann, MD, Adi Levy, BSc, Olga Reitblat, MD, Douglas D. Koch, MD, Li Wang, MD, PhD, and Ehud I. Assia, MD J Cataract Refract Surg (March) 2015;41:548–556 Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of formulas and methods for calculating intraocular lenses (IOLs) in eyes with axial lengths (ALs) >26 mm. Setting: Ein-Tal Eye Center, private practice, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Design: Case series. Methods: The postoperative refraction results of myopic eyes (AL >26.0 mm) were compared to the predicted refractions calculated by standard formulas (Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Haigis) using optical IOL constants, ULIB constants, and the AL adjustment method (Wang and Koch), as well as by newer generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen). Results: Of the 106 eyes available for analysis, 76 had an IOL ≥6 diopters (D) (Group A) and 30 had an IOL <6 D (Group B). SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and Olsen all met the benchmark criteria of a prediction error within ±0.5 D in at least 71% of eyes and within ±1 D in 93% of eyes in Group A. Only the Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas using the AL adjusted method and the Barrett Universal II formula met the benchmark criteria for Group B. Conclusions: The choice of appropriate formulas/methods can yield accurate refractive results that meet updated benchmark criteria for selecting IOLs for high and extreme axial myopia. Financial disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

• Cover