Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 27;37(13):2744–2752. doi: 10.1038/s41433-023-02408-z

Table 3.

Effects of miosis and LPI on the ZCB00 IOL power calculation for emmetropia in PACS and PAC/PACG.

Formulae IOL power predicted for emmetropia
Pre-intervention Post-pilocarpine post-LPI Significance of changing pattern between groups Difference among time points in PACS Difference among time points in PAC/PACG Total
PACS PAC/PACG Total PACS PAC/PACG Total PACS PAC/PACG Total P-value P-value P-value P-value
Third Generation

SRK/T

(Aconst = 119.3)

24.56 (1.89) 24.43 (1.77) 24.49 (1.82) 24.52 (1.93) 24.48 (1.77) 24.50 (1.84) 24.49 (1.87) 24.50 (1.75) 24.50 (1.81) 0.006 0.135 0.041a 0.942

Hoffer Q

(pACD = +5.80)

24.85 (2.12) 24.75 (1.92) 24.80 (2.01) 24.80 (2.18) 24.82 (1.92) 24.81 (2.04) 24.77 (2.11) 24.84 (1.90) 24.80 (2.00) 0.009 0.149 0.054 0.926
Fourth Generation

Haigis

(a0 = −1.302 a1 = +0.21 a2 = +0.251)

24.35 (1.95) 24.21 (1.75) 24.28 (1.85) 24.27 (2.01) 24.25 (1.75) 24.26 (1.88) 24.27 (1.93) 24.29 (1.74) 24.28 (1.83) 0.013 0.12 0.076 0.731

Holladay 2

(ACD = + 5.786)

24.49 (2.01) 24.29 (1.89) 24.39 (1.94) 24.45 (2.03) 24.34 (1.88) 24.39 (1.95) 24.45 (1.98) 24.39 (1.86)* 24.42 (1.91) 0.083 0.633 0.032 0.522
New Generation

Barrett Universal II

(LensFactor = 2.09 DesignFactor = 4)

24.25 (2.01) 24.18 (1.83) 24.22 (1.91) 24.20 (2.10) 24.23 (1.86) 24.22 (1.97) 24.20 (2.00) 24.27 (1.82) 24.23 (1.90) 0.042 0.366 0.07 0.829

The predicted IOL power was presneted as mean (SD). Bold values indicated significant differences based on p value.

*Indicated p < 0.05 for IOL power different from that predicted at baseline (T0).

aRepeated measures ANOVA showed there was significant differences among the IOL power predicted in PAC/PACG group using SRK/T, but Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise post hoc comparison did not reveal any significant difference between any two of the three time points.