Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas

Influence of Lens Thickness on Accuracy of Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, and Pearl-DGS Formulas in Eyes with Nonhigh Myopia and High Myopia

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of lens thickness (LT) on accuracy of Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0 Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and Pearl-DGS formulas in eyes with different axial lengths (AL).

METHODS

The prospective cohort study was conducted at Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University. Patients who had uneventful cataract surgery between March 2021 and July 2023 were recruited. Manifest refraction was conducted two-month post-surgery. Eyes were divided into 4 groups based on AL: short (<22mm), medium (22-24.5 mm), medium long (24.5-26mm) and very long (≥26mm). In each AL group, eyes were then divided into 3 subgroups based on the LT measured with IOLmaster700: thin (<4.5 mm), medium (4.5-5.0 mm), and thick (≥ 5 mm). The influence of LT on accuracy of Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, BUII, EVO, and Pearl-DGS formulas were investigated in each AL group.

RESULTS

A total of 327 eyes from 327 patients were analyzed, with 64, 102, 73 and 88 eyes in each AL group, respectively. In eyes with AL < 24.5 mm, myopic PE was significantly associated with greater LT using all the 5 formulas (all p < 0.05). Backward stepwise multivariate regression analyses revealed that LT was an important influencing factor for PE in all 5 formulas, particularly in eyes with AL <24.5 mm. In eyes with AL <24.5 mm and LT > 5.0 mm, PE of all 5 formulas calculated with the optional parameter LT were more myopic than those calculated without LT.

CONCLUSIONS

Thicker LT was associated with more myopic PE among eyes with AL <24.5 mm when using all 5 formulas. Further optimization of current formulas is necessary, especially for eyes with short AL and thick LT.

Accuracy of the Majority Voting Method with Multiple IOL Power Formulae

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a majority decision algorithm that integrates intraoperative aberrometry (IA) and two intraocular lens (IOL) frequency formulas. The primary objective was to compare the accuracy of three formulas (IA; Sanders, Retzlaff, and Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T); and Barrett Universal II (BUII)), in achieving emmetropia in eyes implanted with TFNT lenses (Alcon).

Patients and Methods

A total of 145 eyes of 145 patients were included in the evaluation. Preoperative data were obtained from IOLMaster 700, while intraoperative data were collected from ORA SYSTEMTM. Visual acuity ≥0.8 at the 3-month post-surgery mark was confirmed. We assessed refractive prediction error (RPE), which is the difference between predicted refraction (PR) and postoperative subjective refraction. This evaluation aimed to identify the optimal IOL power with the implemented algorithm.

Results

Among the 145 eyes evaluated, 55.9%, 78.7%, and 97.2% achieved postoperative subjective refraction within ±0.13 Diopters (D), ±0.25 D, and ±0.50 D, respectively. The percentages of eyes within ±0.25 D of PR varied by formula type, with values of 57%, 57%, and 54% for IA, BUII, and SRK/T, respectively. For eyes with short to medium axial length (AL<26.00 mm), the percentages within ±0.25 D of RPE were 52%, 58%, and 58% for IA, SRK/T, and BUII, respectively. In contrast, for eyes with long axial length (≥26.00 mm) the percentages were 68%, 52%, and 45% for IA, BUII, and SRK/T, respectively.

Conclusion

The proposed majority decision algorithm incorporating IA and two IOL frequency formulas was effective in reducing postoperative refractive error. IA was particularly beneficial for eyes with long axial length. These findings suggest the algorithm has potential to optimize IOL power selection to improve quality of life of patients and clinical practice outcomes.

Optimization of biometry for best refractive outcome in cataract surgery

High-precision biometry and accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation have become essential components of cataract surgery. In clinical practice, IOL power calculation involves measuring parameters such as corneal power and axial length and then applying a power calculation formula. The importance of posterior corneal curvature in determining the true power of the cornea is increasingly being recognized, and newer investigative modalities that can estimate both the anterior and posterior corneal power are becoming the standard of care. Optical biometry, especially using swept-source biometers, with an accuracy of 0.01-0.02 mm, has become the state-of-the-art method in biometry. With the evolution of IOL formulas, the ultimate goal of achieving a given target refraction has also moved closer to accuracy. However, despite these technological efforts to standardize and calibrate methods of IOL power calculation, achieving a mean absolute error of zero for every patient undergoing cataract surgery may not be possible. This is due to inherent consistent bias and systematic errors in the measurement devices, IOL formulas, and the individual bias of the surgeon. Optimization and personalization of lens constants allow for the incorporation of these systematic errors as well as individual bias, thereby further improving IOL power prediction accuracy. Our review provides a comprehensive overview of parameters for accurate biometry, along with considerations to enhance IOL power prediction accuracy through optimization and personalization. We conducted a detailed search in PubMed and Google Scholar by using a combination of MeSH terms and specific keywords such as "ocular biometry," "IOL power calculations," "prediction accuracy of refractive outcome in cataract surgery," "effective lens position," "intraocular lens calculation formulas," and "optimization of A-constants" to find relevant literature. We identified and analyzed 121 relevant articles, and their findings were included.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated.

METHODS

This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms "IOL formulas," "Barrett Universal II," "Kane," "Hill-RBF," "Olsen," "PEARL-DGS," "EVO," "Haigis," "SRK/T," and "Hoffer Q." Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered.

RESULTS

Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack

BACKGROUND

To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC).

METHODS

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes.

RESULTS

In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group.

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths

Purpose

To compare the measurement accuracy of new/updated intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods, namely, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), with existing methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T) in Chinese eyes with axial lengths ≤ 22.5 mm.

Methods

The study included data from patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with the insertion of ZCB00 IOL. Refractive prediction errors were determined by calculating the difference between postoperative refraction and the predicted refraction using each formula. Various parameters were evaluated, including mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within different ranges.

Results

The study enrolled 38 eyes of 38 patients, and the Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAE and MedAE among the tested formulas. Post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank pairwise comparisons for non-parametric samples with Bonferroni correction revealed no significant difference in postoperative refractive prediction among all the formulas (P > 0.05). The percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D was as follows: Barrett Universal II, 81.58%; Haigis, 78.95%; EVO, 76.32%; Olsen, 76.32%; Holladay I, 73.68%; SRK/T, 71.05%; Kane, 68.42%; and Hoffer Q, 65.79%.

Conclusion

The Barrett Universal II formula was more accurate than the other formulas for Chinese eyes with AL ≤ 22.5 mm.

Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.

METHODS

The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.

Refractive outcomes after immediate primary phacoemulsification for acute primary angle closure

This study investigated the refractive outcomes of 64 eyes overall including 32 immediate primary phacoemulsification in acute primary angle closure (APAC) eyes and 32 of their fellow eyes. We investigated best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), average keratometric diopter (K), spherical equivalent, axial length (AL), central corneal thickness, and anterior chamber depth (ACD) at preoperative examination (Pre) and more than 1-month post-phacoemulsification (1 m), and changes in values. Using SRK/T, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Hill-Radial Basis Function Version 3.0 (RBF 3.0), and Kane formulas, we calculated and compared refractive prediction error (PE), absolute value of PE (AE), and changes in K, AL, and ACD from Pre to 1 m between APAC and fellow eyes. From Pre to 1 m, K remained similar in APAC and fellow eyes (p = 0.069 and p = 0.082); AL significantly decreased in APAC and in fellow eyes (both p < 0.001); and ACD significantly increased in APAC and in fellow eyes (both p < 0.001). The change in AL differed significantly between the two groups (p = 0.007). Compared to the fellow eyes, PE with SRK/T and Barret formulas (p = 0.0496 and p = 0.039) and AE with Barrett and RBF 3.0 formula (p = 0.001 and p = 0.024) were significantly larger in the APAC eyes. Thus, attention should be paid to refractive prediction error in immediate primary phacoemulsification for APAC eyes caused by preoperative AL elongation due to high IOP.

Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)

BACKGROUND

To assess and compare the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery in eyes with an axial length (AL) shorter than or equal to 22.00 mm.

METHODS

A retrospective case series included 100 eyes with an AL ≤ 22.00 mm that underwent uneventful cataract surgery. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated using 10 different IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2, Kane, SRK/T and SuperLadas. The median absolute prediction error (MedAE ± SD) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE ± SD) were calculated after adjusting the mean prediction error (ME) to 0.

RESULTS

Hoffer Q obtained the lowest MedAE (0.292 D) after adjusting the ME to 0, followed very closely by EVO 2.0 (0.298 D) and Kane (0.300 D). EVO 2.0 and Kane obtained both the lowest MAE after adjusting the ME to 0 (0.386). Differences in MAE among the different formulas were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reflects a tendency of the EVO 2.0 formula and the Kane formula along with the older Hoffer Q formula, to predict more accurately the refractive outcomes in short eyes that undergo cataract phacoemulsification surgery compared to the other formulas, despite this difference could not be statistically proved.

Recent developments in the intraocular lens formulae: An update

BACKGROUND

The precision of refractive outcomes after uneventful cataract surgery largely depends on the biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) formula used for selecting the IOL. To improve the accuracy of post-op refractive outcomes, several new IOL power calculation formulae have come up. This review would aim to summarise the differences among the new formulae in their performance among normal and variable ocular biometry conditions like short and long axial lengths.

METHODS

A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed and Cochrane databases from 2016 to 2021, identified 483 articles, of which 51 were included in the review.

RESULTS

We identified 15 new IOL formulas (including updates on older formulas) of which, only 8 newer formulas (BUII, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, Pearl DGS, LSF AI, Naesar 2, EVO 2.0 and VRF) met the eligibility criteria. They were compared according to the reported median absolute error, mean absolute error and percentage of eyes within 0.5D.

CONCLUSION

The Kane formula and Barrett Universal-II formula performed better than other formulas over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum. In the long eye (AL > 26.0 mm) sub-group, the Kane formula was the most accurate, while in the short eye (AL < 22.0 mm) sub-group, both Kane and EVO 2.0 formulas fared better than other formulas.

Comparison of the Barrett Universal II, Kane and VRF-G formulas with existing intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with short axial lengths

BACKGROUND

To compare the accuracy of recently developed modern intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane and VRF-G) with existing IOL power formulas in eyes with an axial length (AL) ≤ 22 mm.

METHODS

This analysis comprised 172 eyes of 172 patients operated on by one surgeon (LT) with one IQ SN60WF (Alcon Labs, Fort Worth, TX, USA) hydrophobic lens. Ten IOL formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, SRK/T, T2, VRF and VRF-G. The median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) and all descriptive statistics were evaluated. Percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D and ±1.00 D were calculated using standard optimised constants for the entire range of axial lengths.

RESULTS

The VRF-G, Haigis and Kane produced the smallest MedAE among all formulas (0.242 D, 0.247 D and 0.263 D, respectively) and had the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (75.67%, 73.84% and 75.16%, respectively). The Barrett was less accurate (0.298 D and 68.02%, respectively). Statistically significant differences were found predominantly between the VRF-G (P < 0.05), Kane (P < 0.05) and Haigis (P < 0.05) and all other formulas. The percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D ranged from 66.28% to 75.67%.

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with AL ≤ 22.0 mm, the VRF-G, Haigis and Kane were the most accurate predictors of postoperative refraction, and the Barrett formula was less predictable.

Treatment of Nanophthalmos Cataracts: Surgery and Complications

PURPOSE

Cataract surgery in patients with nanophthalmos is complicated for ophthalmologists to perform. Due to the unique ocular anatomy, there is a high incidence of complex complications such as angle-closure glaucoma, fluid misdirection syndrome, and uveal effusion syndrome (UES) in the perioperative period of cataract surgery. This article will discuss the management options for cataract surgery in nanophthalmic eyes and complications.

METHODS

This review is searched through PubMed, focusing on articles published in the past 20 years. Articles were reviewed on the anatomical structure of nanophthalmic cataracts, the pathogenesis of complications, the selection of intraocular lenses, and surgical methods.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong correlation between abnormal ocular anatomy and complications in patients with nanophthalmos. Clinicians must not only select the appropriate intraocular lens formula based on the depth of the anterior chamber but also formulate personalized surgical methods based on its unique anatomical structure to avoid complications.

Effectiveness, Sensitivity, and Specificity of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Short Eyes

Objectives:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This review article attempts to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes. A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for articles published over the past 21 years, up to July 2021. The mean absolute error was compared by using weighted mean difference, whereas odds ratio was used for comparing the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.0 D of target refraction. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was analyzed by using Chi-square test and I² test. Fifteen studies including 2,395 eyes and 11 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Full Monte method, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Super formula, SRK/T, and T2) were included. Although the mean absolute error (MAE) of Barrett Universal II was found to be the lowest, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the comparisons. The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett Universal II was the lowest (0.260). Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction, respectively. Yet their comparison with the rest of the formulae did not yield statistically significant results. Thus, to conclude, in the present meta-analysis, although lowest MAE and MedAE were found for Barrett Universal II and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction was found for Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF, respectively, none of the formulae was found to be statistically superior over the other in eyes with short axial length.

Different lens power calculation formulas for the prediction of refractive outcome after phacoemulsification with silicone oil removal

Background

Formulas predicting intraocular lens power have not been compared in silicone oil-tamponaded eyes. The study aims to compare six intraocular lens power assessment formulas in silicone oil-tamponaded eyes.

Methods

This prospective study included patients with silicone oil-tamponaded eyes scheduled for silicone oil removal, phacoemulsification, and intraocular lens implantation at Chongqing Aier Eye Hospital (June 2019 to December 2019). Implanted intraocular lens power was used to predict postsurgical spherical equivalence using SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Hoffer Q, and Barrett Universal II, and assess those formula’s predictive accuracy with predictive error.

Results

The analysis included 47 eyes in 47 patients (28 and 19 eyes with normal and long axial length, respectively). Postoperative spherical equivalence at 6 months in normal and long axial length eyes was − 0.6 ± 0.96 and − 0.8 ± 1.52 D, respectively. Predictive error values for SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Hoffer Q and Barrett Universal II were − 0.18 ± 0.92, − 0.15 ± 0.88, − 0.06 ± 0.94, − 0.15 ± 0.87, and − 0.05 ± 0.90 D and − 0.06 ± 0.90, respectively, for normal axial length eyes and 0.15 ± 1.16, 0.46 ± 1.17, 0.28 ± 1.11, − 0.04 ± 1.12, 0.49 ± 1.09 D and 0.11 ± 0.99, respectively, for long axial length eyes. For normal axial length eyes, predicted outcomes were similar to actual outcomes for all formulas. For long axial length eyes, predicted outcomes differed significantly from measured postsurgical values for Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Hoffer Q (P < 0.05) but not SRK/T or Haigis or Barrett Universal II .

Conclusions

The formulas had comparable predictive accuracy in silicone oil-tamponaded eyes with normal axial length, but Haigis or SRK/T or Barrett Universal II may be preferable in long axial length eyes.

Trial registration

ChiCTR1900023215.

Comparing the accuracy of new intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes after cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in short eyes for cataract surgery has been a challenge. A meta-analysis was conducted to identify, among several classic and new IOL power calculation formulae, which obtains the best accuracy.

METHODS

All studies aiming at comparing the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulae in short eyes were searched up in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from Jan. 2011 to Mar. 2021. Primary outcomes were the percentages of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.25D, ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D.

RESULTS

Totally 1,476 eyes from 14 studies were enrolled in comparison of 13 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Okulix, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T and T2). Pearl-DGS had the highest percentage within ± 0.25D. In the ± 0.5D range, Pearl-DGS obtained the highest percentage again, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2 and Olsen (P = 0.001, P = 0.02, P = 0.0003, P = 0.01, P = 0.007, P = 0.05, respectively). In the ± 1.0D range, Okulix possessed the highest percentage, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Hoffer Q and Holladay2 (P = 0.0005, P = 0.03, P = 0.003, P = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The new generation formulae, based on artificial intelligence or ray-tracing principle, are more accurate than the convergence formulae. Pearl-DGS and Okulix are the two most accurate formulae in short eyes.

[Alternative method of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length]

PURPOSE

To develop an alternative method of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and axial length (AL) of less than 22.0 mm using modern formulas Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study enrolled 41 patients (41 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE). Ultrasound biometry (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry (Topcon-8800) were used for IOL power calculation by SRK/T and Haigis formulas. To calculate IOL power by Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF formulas, 0.2 mm were added to AL measured with ultrasonography (retinal thickness). One month after PE, spherical equivalent of refraction was compared with target refraction (calculated by the formulas listed above), and based on that a conclusion was made on the accuracy of calculations.

RESULTS

Haigis formula was found to be the least accurate (IOL calculation error -0.39±0.79 D). The calculation error in SRK/T (0.04±0.79 D), Barrett Universal II (0.02±0.79 D) and Hill RBF (-0.05±0.73 D) formulas was much lower. However, among them Hill RBF had the lowest spread of the mean absolute IOL calculation error. Pairwise comparison revealed significant difference of mean IOL calculation error by Haigis formula versus the others. There was no significant difference in the following pairs: SRK/T - Barrett Universal II (p=0.855), and SRK/T - Hill RBF (p=0.167), but there was a significant difference (p=0.043) in the Barrett Universal II - Hill RBF pairdue to the tendency for slight hypermetropic calculation error in the former and the inherent slight myopic shift in the latter..

CONCLUSION

The proposed alternative method of IOL power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and short AL using modern formulas (Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF) shows higher accuracy compared to the formulas embedded in ultrasound biometer (SRK/T and Haigis), and can be recommended for use in everyday practice.

THE EXACTNESS OF INTRAOCULAR LENS POWER CALCULATION FORMULAS FOR SHORT EYES AND CORRELATION BETWEEN METHOD ACCURACY AND EYEBALL AXIAL LENGTH

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas and to examine the correlation of this exactness with the axial length for eyes shorter than 22.00 mm Methods: The data of hyperopic patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between October 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed. The intraocular lens power for each patient was calculated using 6 formulas (Holladay1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis and Barrett Universal II) before cataract surgery. Postoperative refraction was measured, and refractive prediction error was calculated 3 months after phacoemulsification. The correlation between axial length and absolute error was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (62 eyes) whose ocular axial length ranged between 20.58 mm and 21.97 mm were included in the study. The Hoffer Q formula achieved the lowest mean absolute error of 0.09 (±0.08 D). A significant correlation for the Hoffer Q (&#961; = -0.329, p = 0.009) and the SRK/T (&#961; = 0.321, p = 0.011) formula was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Hoffer Q formula obtained the lowest absolute error and was recommended for intraocular lens power calculation for eyeballs with axial length shorter than 22.0 mm. 2. The correlation between axial length and absolute error is a factor which should be considered when calculating intraocular lens power.

Intraocular lens power calculation changes before and after isotonic collagen cross-linking in keratoconus patients

Purpose:

To find the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation changes before and after isotonic collagen cross-linking (CXL) in keratoconus patients.

Methods:

Thirty-five eyes of 25 patients who underwent isotonic CXL were included. The cases included conventional CXL (n = 16), accelerated CXL (n = 7), contact lens-assisted CXL (CACXL) (n = 9), accelerated CACXL (n = 3). All underwent ocular biometry (IOL master), corneal topography (Orbscan II), and simulated keratometry (Orbscan II) preoperatively and 1-year post CXL. Change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), axial length (AL), simulated keratometry (Sim K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and IOL power were analyzed in the overall data and then grouped based on flattening (Group A) and no flattening (Group B) of Sim K value post CXL procedure.

Results:

For the overall data, there was no significant change in IOL power (P = 0.05) at the end of 1 year, BCVA showed a significant increase (P < 0.01), and Sim K reading showed a statistically significant flattening (P = 0.001); ACD and AL showed insignificant change. In intergroup comparison, there was no statistically significant change in IOL power. However, in Group A, a significant change in BCVA and Sim K values was observed. In both groups (Group A and Group B), IOL power was found to be negatively correlated with AL and Sim K values.

Conclusion:

Isotonic CXL did not affect IOL power calculation at the end of 1 year. However, significant change in BCVA and sim K reading was noted.

Accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in Marfan lens subluxation patients with in-the-bag IOLs and implantation of scleral-sutured single-eyelet modified capsular tension rings

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for the prediction of postoperative refraction in lens subluxation in Marfan syndrome.

SETTING

Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

DESIGN

Consecutive retrospective clinical observational case series.

METHODS

60 eligible eyes with lens subluxation from 39 young patients with Marfan syndrome (8.53 ± 4.38 years) underwent phacoemulsification combined with single-eyelet modified capsular tension ring (MCTR) and IOL implantation. The prediction error values with mean zero out (relative prediction error) and their absolute values (AE) were calculated.

RESULTS

Generally, the SRK/T formula with Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment had the lowest median AE at 0.418 diopters (D), and the Holladay 1 with WK adjustment had the lowest mean AE at 0.499 D. The median AE of the other 10 formulas, in order from lowest to highest, were Haigis with WK (0.494 D), Holladay 1 with WK (0.495 D), Hoffer Q with WK (0.508 D), Haigis (0.525 D), T2 (0.542 D), Hoffer Q (0.624 D), SRK/T and Holladay 1 (0.660 D), Super (0.680 D), and Barrett Universal II (0.714 D) formulas. Haigis formula was found to be statistically significantly different from SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Barrett Universal II (all 3 P < .001) but not Hoffer Q (P = .236) formula.

CONCLUSIONS

The Haigis formula was recommended for young Marfan lens subluxation patients with in-the-bag IOLs and scleral-sutured single-eyelet MCTR implantation. WK adjustments were successful in those cases where the axial length was longer than 25.0 mm.

Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes: Is it essential?

Purpose:

Optimization of lens constants is a critically important step that improves refractive outcomes significantly. Whether lens constants optimized for the entire range of axial length would perform equally well in short eyes is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze whether lens constants need to be optimized specifically for short eyes.

Methods:

This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Eighty-six eyes of eighty-six patients were included. Optical biometry with IOLMaster 500 was done in all cases and lens constants were optimized using built-in software. Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae were compared using optimized constants. Mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction, of each formula were analyzed using manufacturer’s, ULIB, and optimized lens constants. MedAE was compared across various constants used by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and among optimized constants by Friedman’s test. Cochran’s Q test compared the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ± 2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Optimized constant of Haigis had significantly lower MedAE (P < 0.00001) as compared to manufacturers. However, there was no statistically significant difference between ULIB and optimized constants. Postoptimization, there was no statistically significant difference among all formulae.

Conclusion:

Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes gives no added advantage over those optimized for the entire range of axial length.

Evaluating newer generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in manual versus femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

AIM

To determine the refractive accuracy of the Haigis, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), and Hill-radial basis function 2.0 (Hill-RBF) intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations formulas in eyes undergoing manual cataract surgery (MCS) and refractive femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (ReLACS).

METHODS

This was a REB-approved, retrospective interventional comparative case series of 158 eyes of 158 patients who had preoperative biometry completed using the IOL Master 700 and underwent implantation of a Tecnis IOL following uncomplicated cataract surgery using either MCS or ReLACS. Target spherical equivalence (SE) was predicted using the Haigis, Barrett, and Hill-RBF formulas. An older generation formula (Hoffer Q) was included in the analysis. Mean refractive error (ME) was calculated one month postoperatively. The lens factors of all formulas were retrospectively optimized to set the ME to 0 for each formula across all eyes. The median absolute errors (MedAE) and the proportion of eyes achieving an absolute error (AE) within 0.5 diopters (D) were compared between the two formulas among MCS and ReLACS eyes, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 158 eyes studied, 64 eyes underwent MCS and 94 eyes underwent ReLACS. Among MCS eyes, the MedAE did not differ between the formulas (P=0.59), however among ReLACS eyes, Barrett and Hill-RBF were more accurate (P=0.001). Barrett and Hill-RBF were both more likely to yield AE<0.5 D among both groups (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Barrett and Hill-RBF formula lead to greater refractive accuracy and likelihood of refractive success when compare to Haigis in eyes undergoing ReLACS.

Clinical Accuracy of 18 IOL Power Formulas in 241 Short Eyes

PURPOSE

To analyze the accuracy of 18 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) ≤ 22 mm.

METHODS

We analyzed 241 eyes of 241 patients. Eighteen formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2, Cooke K6, Kane, LadasSuperFormula AI, Naeser 2, Olsen, Panacea, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2, VRF and VRF-G. Optical biometry was performed with an IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). With lens constants optimized for the whole range of AL, the mean prediction error (PE) and its standard deviation (SD), the median absolute error (MedAE), the mean absolute error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D and <±1.00 D were calculated.

RESULTS

Post-hoc analysis of the absolute PE revealed statistically significant differences (P < .05) between some of the newer formulas (K6, Kane, Naeser 2, Olsen and VRF-G), which obtained the lowest MedAE (respectively, 0.308, 0.300, 0.277, 0.310 and 0.276 D) and the remaining ones. These formulas yielded also the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (70.54%, 72.20%, 71.37%, 70.95% and 73.03%, respectively), whereas Panacea and SRK/T yielded the lowest percentage (62.24%), with a stastically significant difference (P < .05) with respect to most formulas.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with AL ≤22.0 mm, new formulas (K6, Kane, Naeser 2, Olsen and VRF-G) offer the most accurate predictions of postoperative refraction.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, Kane, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Haigis, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T in primary angle-closure disease (PACD).

METHODS

A total of 129 PACD eyes were enrolled. Prediction refraction was calculated for each formula and compared with actual refraction. Accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ± 0.50D. Subgroup analysis was performed according to axial length (AL).

RESULTS

Overall, FPI was ranked as follows: Kane (0.067), RBF 3.0 (0.064), Haigis (0.062), SRK/T (0.060), BUII (0.058), Hoffer Q (0.055), and LSF (0.049). Kane got the highest (71.3%) percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D. In medium AL eyes (22 mm < AL ≤ 25 mm), FPI ranked the same as in total group. MedAEs were equal across all formulas (P = 0.121). In short eyes (AL ≤ 22 mm), FPI was Kane (0.055), RBF 3.0 (0.050), SRK/T (0.050), Haigis (0.049), BUII (0.047), Hoffer Q (0.045), and LSF (0.033). MedAEs were significantly different across all formulas (P = 0.033). Haigis showed the lowest MedAE (0.35 D), Haigis and Kane got the highest percentage (63.6%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D.

CONCLUSION

Kane outperformed in total PACD eyes; RBF 3.0, Haigis, and SRK/T achieved satisfying performance. When dealing with PACD eyes shorter than 22 mm, Kane achieved the best accuracy. RBF 3.0, SRK/T, Haigis, and BUII achieved comparable outcomes. No formula showed superiority over others for medium AL PACD eyes.

Risk Factor for Transient Hyperopic Refractive Outcome at Acute Postoperative Period After Panoptix Intraocular Lens Implantation

Purpose

To evaluate transient hyperopic refractive outcomes after Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNT intraocular lens (IOL) implantation and risk factors for transient hyperopia.

Methods

This was a retrospective case review conducted from July 5, 2019, to February 28, 2020, of 203 eyes from 203 patients. The spherical equivalent (SE) on postoperative day 1, week 1, month 1, month 2, and month 6 was evaluated, and the difference between SE (dSE) on postoperative day 1 and month 6 was calculated. Ocular parameters that were associated with a high dSE were evaluated.

Results

This study evaluated 203 eyes from 203 patients (mean age ± SD, 59.14 ± 5.78 years; 129 women [63.5%]). The dSE ± SD was 0.07 ± 0.30 D, 0.14 ± 0.34 D, 0.12 ± 0.35 D, and 0.08 ± 0.35 D for postoperative week 1, month 1, month 2, and month 6, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that the anterior chamber depth and white-to-white (WTW) corneal diameter were associated with a larger dSE (P = 0.048 and P = 0.03, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that the WTW diameter was independently associated with the large amount of dSE at 6 months (r = -0.162; P = 0.03).

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that a smaller WTW corneal diameter was associated with a large dSE between postoperative day 1 and postoperative month 6.

Predictive Value of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulae in Children

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulae in a large cohort of children who underwent IOL implantation.

Setting

Cairo University Children Hospital.

Design

Retrospective, case series.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of all children <14 years, who underwent primary or secondary IOL implantation in Cairo University Children Hospital from January 2016 to December 2019, was performed. Absolute prediction error (APE) was calculated for SRKII, SRK/T, Holladay I and Hoffer-Q formulae using the patients' AL, keratometric (K) readings, implanted IOL power and refraction done two months postoperatively.

Results

The study included 308 eyes of 255 patients with a mean age of 4.74 ± 3.19 years at the time of surgery. The mean K-reading was 43.42 ± 3.57 diopters (D) and mean AL was 22.01 ± 1.93 mm. The percentage of eyes with APE within 0.5D was 27.7% (85 eyes), 32.2% (99 eyes), 30.6% (94 eyes) and 25.4% (78 eyes) with SRK II, SRK/T, Holladay I and Hoffer-Q formulae, respectively. APE was significantly lower with the SRK/T formula (P≤0.004) and significantly higher with the Hoffer-Q formula (P≤ 0.002). There was a negative correlation between the age of the patient and the APE of the SRK II formula (P=0.02). Moreover, the SRK/T, Holladay and Hoffer-Q formulae APEs were affected by the average k-readings (P=0.019, 0.005 and 0.035) respectively.

Conclusion

The SRK/T and Holladay I formulae were the most predictable formulae in IOL power calculation in pediatric eyes.

Lens thickness and associated ocular biometric factors among cataract patients in Shanghai

Background

To evaluate the distribution of lens thickness (LT) and its associations with other ocular biometric factors among cataract patients in Shanghai.

Methods

Twenty-four thousand thirteen eyes from 24,013 cataract patients were retrospectively included. Ocular biometric factors including LT, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), white-to-white (WTW) distance, anterior corneal curvature, and axial length (AL) were obtained using the IOLMaster700. The associations between LT and general or ocular factors were assessed.

Results

The mean age was 62.5 ± 13.6 years and 56.1% were female. The mean LT was 4.51 ± 0.46 mm. The LT was greater in older patients (P < 0.001). LT was positively correlated with CCT, while negatively correlated with ACD, WTW, and anterior corneal curvature (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that increased LT was associated with older age, male gender, thicker CCT, shallower ACD, larger WTW, and flatter anterior corneal curvature (P < 0.001). LT changed with a variable behavior according to AL. In short eyes LT increased as AL increased, then decreased with longer AL in normal eyes and moderate myopic eyes, but increased again as AL increased in highly myopic eyes. Thickest LT was found in the 20.01–22 mm AL group. The correlation between LT and other biometric factors remained significant when stratified by ALs.

Conclusions

In a large Chinese cataractous population, we found that the thicker lens may be associated with older age, male gender, thicker CCT, shallower ACD, larger WTW, and flatter anterior corneal curvature. As AL increased, the change of LT was nonlinear, with the thickest lens seen in the 20–22 mm AL group.

Optimizing the intraocular lens formula constant according to intraocular lens diameter

AIM

To determine whether the different diameters of a specific intraocular lens (IOL) have significantly different optimized SRK/T A constants and whether these new A constants can improve refractive outcomes.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively from Jan. 2011 to Dec. 2012 on all patients undergoing routine cataract surgery at a district general hospital in the UK. Patients were divided into three groups according to the size of the Akreos AO MI60 IOL used. A constants for the SRK/T formula were optimized according to the size of the IOL. These optimized A constants were then used to select future refractive outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2398 cataract operations were performed during the study period of which 1131 met the inclusion criteria. The three optimized A constants for the different sized IOLs were 118.98, 119.13, 119.32. The difference between them was highly significant (P≤0.0001). Two optimized A constants for three sizes of IOL led to an improvement in refractive outcomes (from 93.4% to 94.6% of refractive outcomes within 1.00 D of predicted spherical equivalent). The optimized A constant for the largest IOL was based on a small number of cases and was not used.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing the A constant for the three distinct sizes of the Bausch & Lomb Akreos MI60 lens lead to three significantly different A constants. In our practice, using two different optimized A constants for three different sized IOLs give the least refractive error, however, using three optimized A constants may give better results with a larger dataset.

Accuracy of a universal theoretical formula for power calculation in pediatric intraocular lens implantation

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of Barrett Universal II formula with other formulas (Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T formulas) in the prediction of postoperative refraction for pediatric intraocular lens implantation.

SETTING

Academic medical center/children's hospital, San Francisco, California.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Children aged 16 years or younger who underwent cataract extraction and IOL implantation (2012 to 2019) and had refraction assessed at 3 to 16 weeks postoperatively were included. Prediction error (PE) was calculated as postoperative mean spherical equivalent minus the target refraction. Mean, median, and standard deviation was calculated for PE and absolute PE. Performance across covariables (axial length, age, biometry type, keratometry, etc.) was studied, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed using a single prediction model for each formula.

RESULTS

Sixty-four eyes of 64 patients, aged 1.5 to 15.5 years, were included. Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest mean PE (-0.22 diopters [D]), SD (1.18 D), median PE (-0.26 D), and median absolute PE (0.71) compared with those of the other formulas. Holladay 2 formula performed similarly to Barrett Universal II formula, and SRK/T formula had the greatest mean PE (-0.50 D) and SD (1.22 D). Barrett Universal II formula predictions were stable across all variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated similar or superior performance when compared with other formulas in this pediatric study. Holladay 2 formula performed similarly to Barrett Universal II formula, and SRK/T formula had the least reliable performance, across several key biometric characteristics. Although PEs can be highly variable in pediatric populations, this study supports Barrett Universal II formula as a reasonable and reliable option for lens power calculation in children, including those with extreme biometric measurements.

Recurring themes during cataract assessment and surgery

The aim of this review was to discuss frequently encountered themes such as cataract surgery in presence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), dementia, Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery (ISBCS), discussing non-standard intraocular lens (IOL) options during consultation in the National Health Services (NHS) and the choice of the biometric formulae based on axial length. Individual groups of authors worked independently on each topic. We found that cataract surgery does improve visual acuity in AMD patients but the need for cataract surgery should be individualised. In patients with dementia, cataract surgery should be considered 'sooner rather than later' as progression may prevent individuals presenting for surgery. This should be planned after discussion of patients' best interests with any carers; multifocal IOLs are not proven to be the best option in these patients. ISBCS gives comparable outcomes to delayed sequential surgeries with a low risk of bilateral endophthalmitis and it can be cost-saving and efficient. Patients are entitled to know all suitable IOL options that can improve their quality of life. Deliberately withholding this information or pressuring patients to choose a non-standard IOL is inappropriate. However, one should be mindful of the not spending inappropriate amounts of time discussing these in the NHS setting which may affect care of other NHS patients. Evidence suggests Hoffer Q, Haigis, Hill-RBF and Kane formulae for shorter eyes; Barrett Universal II (BU II), Holladay II, Haigis and Kane formulae for longer eyes and BU II, Hill-RBF and Kane formulae for medium axial length eyes.

Accuracy of theoretical IOL formulas for Panoptix intraocular lens according to axial length

The accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations is suboptimal for long or short eyes, which results in a low visual quality after multifocal IOL implantation. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and Haigis) for the Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNT IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc, Fort Worth, Texas, United States) implantation based on the axial length (AXL) from a large cohort of 2018 cases and identify the factors that are associated with a high mean absolute error (MAE). The Barrett Universal II showed the lowest MAE in the normal AXL group (0.30 ± 0.23), whereas the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q showed the lowest MAE in the short AXL group (0.32 ± 0.22 D and 0.32 ± 0.21 D, respectively). The Haigis showed the lowest MAE in the long AXL group (0.24 ± 0.19 D). The Barrett Universal II did not perform well in short AXL eyes with higher astigmatism (P = 0.013), wider white-to-white (WTW; P < 0.001), and shorter AXL (P = 0.016). Study results suggest that the Barrett Universal II performed best for the TFNT IOL in the overall study population, except for the eyes with short AXL, particularly when the eyes had higher astigmatism, wider WTW, and shorter AXL.

Refractive outcomes of 8 biometric formulas in combined phacovitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling for epiretinal membrane

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of 8 different biometric formulas in combined phacovitrectomy and the effect of constant optimization on refractive outcome.

SETTING

Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

METHODS

In this single-center study, patients with cataract and epiretinal membrane who underwent combined phacovitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling (Group B) and axial length-matched patients who underwent phacoemulsification (Group A) were included. In Group C, optimized constants from Group A were applied in patients of Group B. One eye of each patient was included. Main outcome measures after constant optimization for each biometric formula were refractive prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.5 D, and ±1.0 D.

RESULTS

The study comprised 128 patients. For all formulas in Group A and Group B, refractive PE was 0.000 (P = .964 and P = .967, respectively). For formulas Barrett, Haigis, Hill, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, and SRK-T, refractive PE was -0.147, -0.204, -0.180, -0.212, -0.180, -0.178, -0.153, and -0.159, respectively, in Group C (P = .569); MAE was 0.346, 0.375, 0.382, 0.379, 0.355, 0.377, 0.318, and 0.364, respectively, in Group A (P = .286); 0.402, 0.422, 0.417, 0.427, 0.417, 0.402, 0.370, and 0.401, respectively, in Group B (P = .364); and 0.401, 0.424, 0.419, 0.444, 0.424, 0.404, 0.391, and 0.422, respectively, in Group C (P = .767). Effect of constant optimization in phacovitrectomy was statistically significant for all formulas (P < .001 for each formula).

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference was observed between the biometric formulas with regard to PE and MAE. However, in terms of phacovitrectomy, constant optimization should be considered for individual intraocular lens power calculations attributable to myopic shift.

Topical Review: Causes of Refractive Error After Silicone-oil Removal Combined with Cataract Surgery

SIGNIFICANCE

This review summarizes the main factors of refractive error after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery.The post-operative refractive results of silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery are closely related to the patient's future vision quality. This report summarizes the factors that influence the difference between the actual post-operative refractive power and the pre-operatively predicted refractive power after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery, including axial length, anterior chamber depth, silicone oil, commonly used tools for measuring intraocular lens power, and intraocular lens power calculation formulas, among others. The aim of the report is to assist clinical and scientific research on the elimination of refractive error after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery.

Project hyperopic power prediction: accuracy of 13 different concepts for intraocular lens calculation in short eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in a patient cohort with short axial eye length to assess the performance of IOL power calculation schemes in strong hyperopes.

METHODOLOGY

The study was a single centre, single surgeon retrospective consecutive case series at the Augen- und Laserklinik, Castrop-Rauxel, Germany. Inclusion of patients after uneventful cataract surgery implanting either spherical (SA60AT) or aspheric (ZCB00) IOLs. Inclusion criteria were axial eye length <21.5 mm and/or emmetropising IOL power >28.5 D. Lens constants were optimised on a separate patient cohort considering the full bandwidth of axial eye length. Data of one single eye per patient were randomly included. The outcome measures were: mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error, mean prediction error with SD and median prediction error and the percentage of eyes with an MAE within 0.25 D, 0.5 D, 0.75 D and 1.0 D.

RESULTS

A total of 150 eyes from 150 patients were assessed. Okulix, PEARL-DGS, Kane and Castrop provided a statistically significantly smaller MAE compared with the Hoffer Q and SRK/T formulae.

CONCLUSION

In our patient cohort with short axial eye length, the use of PEARL-DGS, Okulix, Kane or Castrop formulae showed the lowest MAE. The Castrop formula has not been published before, but will be disclosed with a ready-to-use Excel sheet as an addendum to this paper.

Evaluation of a New IOL Power Calculator in Cataract Patients with Normal and Long Axial Lengths

Purposes: To evaluate the accuracy of Ophtha Top and consistency between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 in intraocular lens refractive power calculation among cataract patients with normal and long axial lengths. Methods: This study included cataract patients scheduled for phacoemulsification and IOL implantation surgery. The IOL power was calculated using Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 (integrated with SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 formula). The accuracy of IOL power calculation between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 was compared. Bland-Altman plots were also used to assess agreement between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500. Results: Ninety-four patients (94 eyes) were included. The mean values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors of Ophtha Top were -0.22 ± 0.62 D and 0.52 ± 0.40 D for whole sample. Absolute refractive error showed no significant difference between Ophtha Top and IOLMaster 500 using 3 traditional formulas in eyes with normal and long axial lengths. In normal eyes, mean and medium absolute error of Ophtha Top was 0.49D and 0.48D, which were comparable to that of IOLMaster 500 (Hoffer Q:0.47D; 0.40D & Holladay 1: 0.48D; 0.37D). Similar trend was found in long eyes (Ophtha Top:0.58 D & IOLMaster using SRK/T:0.53D). Conclusions: Ophtha Top based on real ray-tracing method could provide predictable outcomes in all eyes, which was comparable to outcomes from IOLMaster 500 using SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Hollday 1 formula. Ophtha Top would be a promising alternative choice for IOL power calculation.

Influence of the anterior chamber depth on the accuracy of the intraocular lens optical power calculation in short eyes

Background. The calculation of the optical strength of the intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with a short anterior-posterior axis presents significant difficulties due to non-standard anatomical parameters of the eye, including the anterior chamber depth. Aim: determination of the relationship between the anterior chamber depth (ACD) and the accuracy of the IOL optical power calculation in eyes with an axial length of less than 22 mm. Methods. A total of 86 patients (133 eyes) with a short axis from 18.54 to 21.98 (20.7 0.9) mm, were included in the study. Group I (n = 29, 40 eyes) consisted of patients with ACD of less than 2.5 mm. Group II (n = 30, 49 eyes) included patients with ACD from 2.5 to 2.9 mm Group III (n = 27, 44 eyes) included patients with ACD greater than 2.9 mm. The calculation of the IOL optical power was carried out according to the formula SRK/T, the retrospective comparison was performed according to the Hoffer Q, Holladay II, Olsen, Haigis and Barrett Universal II formulas. Results. In all three groups, there was an increase in UCVA and BCVA in the postoperative period. In group I, there were no significant differences when comparing MedAE for the six formulas (p 0.05). The highest MedAE values (0.51 and 0.49 respectively) and the smaller MNE range (-0.03 0.89 and -0.01 0.97 respectively) are shown for the Haigis and Barrett Universal II formulas. In group II, the MedAE for the Haigis formula was 0.45, for SRK/T and Olsen it was 0.59 and 0.66. For the Haigis formula, the lowest MNE value (0.05 0.69) is shown. In group III, no significant differences were found when comparing the average values of MedAE (р 0.05). The lowest MedAE (0.17) and the best MNE values (-0.01 0.58) are shown for the Haigis formula, while the SRK/T formula was characterized by the highest MedAE (0.37). In group II, the refractive index 0.25 and 0.50 D for the Haigis formula was significantly higher. Conclusion. For eyes with ACD of less than 2.4 mm, none of the formulas showed a significant advantage, while for ACD of 2.42.9 mm and higher, the use of the Haigis formula is recommended, and the SRK / T formula showed the worst result. The data obtained dictate the need to review the existing standards for calculating the IOL optical power in patients with short eyes depending on ACD.

Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas; Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Olsen _Lenstar, Panacea, Pearl-DGS, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T). In addition, an analysis of the efficacy as a function of the axial length was performed.

METHODS

About 171 from 93 patients: 68 male eyes and 103 female eyes. Twelve IOL power formula calculations were studied with one IOL platform (trifocal hydrophilic IOL, FineVision Micro F), one biometer (Lenstar LS 900), one topographer (CSO Sirius Topographer), one surgeon, and one optometrist. Optimization were determined to be zeroed mean refractive prediction error. Mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and refractive accuracy within ±1.00 D was calculated. Axial length was split in short and medium eyes.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy eyes were included. Formulas were ranked by percentage within ±0.50 diopters and MAE (D). Among all eyes, Olsen 86.55% (0.273 D) and Barrett Universal II 86.55% (0.285D). For short eyes (<22.5 mm), Olsen 90.70% (0.273 D) and Kane 90.70% (0.225 D). For medium eyes, Barrett 89.34% (0.237 D) and Pearl 86.89% (0.263 D).

CONCLUSION

Olsen and Barrett formula obtained excellent accuracy for overall eyes. Kane and Olsen formula obtained the best results in short eyes. For medium axial length Barrett formula achieved the best accuracy results.

Recent developments in intraocular lens power calculation methods-update 2020

For many decades only a few formulas have been available to calculate the intraocular lens (IOL) power for patients undergoing cataract surgery: the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2 and SRK/T. In recent years, several new formulas for IOL power calculation have been introduced with the aim of improving the accuracy of refraction prediction in eyes undergoing cataract surgery. These include the Barrett Universal II, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), the Kane, the Næser 2, the Olsen, the Panacea, the Pearl DGS, the Radial Basis Function (RBF), the T2 and the VRF formulas. Although most of them are unpublished so that their structure is unknown, we give an overview of each formula and report the results of the studies that have compared them. Their performance in short and long eyes is provided and a special focus is given on the issue of segmented axial length, which is a promising method to obtain more accurate outcomes in short and long eyes. Here, the group refractive index originally developed for the IOLMaster may not represent the best method to convert the optical path length into a physical distance. The issue of posterior and total corneal astigmatism (TCA) is discussed in relation to toric IOLs; the latest formulas for toric IOLs and their results are also reported.

Bilateral implantation of +56 and +58 diopter custom-made intraocular lenses in patient with extreme nanophthalmos

Purpose

To present the case of a 60-year-old patient with severe nanophthalmic eyes, who underwent cataract surgery with a bilateral implantation of custom-made high-power intraocular lenses (IOLs).

Observations

The axial length was 14.94 and 15.05 mm of the right and the left eye, respectively. The preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was +0.46 logMAR (20/63) in the right eye and +0.58 logMAR (20/80) in the left eye with rigid contact lenses of +17.5 D bilaterally. The calculated IOL power for emmetropia with different formulas ranged from +55.28 to +70.09 D. The IOL power selection was based on the average value from four formulas (Haigis, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK/T) with the target refraction of emmetropia. Custom-made +56.0 and + 58.0 D Aspira-aAY IOLs (HumanOptics AG, Erlangen, Germany) were implanted without any complications. The postoperative CDVA was +0.40 logMAR (20/50) and +0.60 logMAR (20/80). The manifest refraction spherical equivalents were +0.625 D and −0.375 D.

Conclusions and importance

Even in eyes with the axial length of only 15 mm, cataract surgery can be successfully performed after adequate preparation. High-power customized IOLs allow complete correction of hyperopia but caution is required with the results from different IOL power calculation formulas, which can be misleading.

Comparison of the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK-T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, Ladas Super formula, EVO and Kane).

Setting

Private university hospital (QuironSalud, Madrid, Spain).

Design

Retrospective case series

Methods

Data were compiled from 481 eyes of 481 patients who had undergone uneventful cataract surgery with IOL insertion. Preoperative biometric measurements were made using an IOL Master® 700. Respective ULIB IOL constants ( http://ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.htm ) for each of 4 IOL models implanted were used to calculate the predictive refractive outcome for each formula. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome determined 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was mean absolute prediction error (MAE). The study sample was divided according to axial length (AL) into three groups of eyes: short (⩽22.00 mm), normal (22.00–25.00 mm) and long (⩾25.00 mm).

Results

The Barrett Universal II and Haigis formulas yielded the lowest MAEs over the entire AL range ( p < .01, except EVO) as well as in the long ( p < .01, all formulas) and normal ( p < .01, except Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen and LSF) eyes. In the short eyes, the lower MAEs were provided by Haigis and EVO ( p < .01 except Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay I).

Conclusions

Barrett Universal II was the most accurate for IOL power calculation in the normal and long eyes. For short eyes, the formulas Haigis and EVO seem best at predicting refractive outcomes.

Ratio of Axial Length to Corneal Radius in Japanese Patients and Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Based on Biometric Data

PURPOSE

To evaluate the features of the axial length-to-corneal radius (AL/CR) ratio in Japanese patients with cataracts and to determine the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas according to the AL/CR features and the axial length (AL).

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

METHODS

Setting was a clinical practice. Patient population was a total of 1,135 eyes (1,135 patients) with cataracts. Observation procedures included measurement of the AL and corenal radius (CR) by optical biometry and evaluation of the refractive outcomes by using the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas. Main outcome measurements were the features of the AL/CR ratio and the accuracy of IOL power calculations based on the AL/CR ratio and the AL.

RESULTS

The mean AL/CR ratio was 3.15 ± 0.19. Significant weak negative correlations were observed between the spherical equivalent (SE) and AL (r = -0.7489; P < .001) and between the SE and AL/CR ratio (r = -0.8069; P < .001); no correlation was found between the SE and CR (r = 0.0208, P = .483). For medium ALs and high AL/CR ratios, the SRK/T formula performed less accurately. For long ALs and high AL/CR ratios, the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas performed less accurately. The Barrett Universal II formula performed well across a range of ALs and AL/CR ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

The AL/CR ratio explained the total variation in the SE better than the AL alone. Surgeons should pay attention to the selection of IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with high AL/CR ratios.

An Advanced Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA) in post refractive surgery IOL power calculation with unknown preoperative parameters

PURPOSE

To test a new method to calculate the Intraocular Lens (IOL) power, that combines R Factor and ALxK methods, that we called Advance Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study.

SETTING

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Italy.

METHODS

Ninety one eyes of 91 patients previously treated with Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) or Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) that underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were analyzed. For 68 eyes it was possible to zero out the Mean Errors (ME) for each formula and for selected IOL models, in order to eliminate the bias of the lens factor (A-Costant). Main outcome, measured in this study, was the median absolute error (MedAE) of the refraction prediction.

RESULTS

In the sample with ME zeroed (68 eyes) both R Factor and ALxK methods resulted in MedAE of 0.67 D. For R Factor 33 eyes (48.53%) reported a refractive error <0.5D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1D, For ALxK method, 32 eyes (47.06%) reported a refractive error <0.5 D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1 D. ALMA method, reported a MedAE of 0.55 D, and an higher number of patients with a refractive error <0.5 D (35 eyes, 51.47%), and with a refractive error <1 D (54 eyes, 79.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results obtained from this study, ALMA method can improve R Factor and ALxK methods. This improvement is confirmed both by zeroing the mean error and without zeroing it.

Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry: A Review

The refractive outcome of cataract surgery is influenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devices used to measure the eye (including intraoperative aberrometry [IA]). This review aimed to cover the breadth of literature over the previous 10 years, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is the most accurate? (2) What biometry devices are available, do the measurements they obtain differ from one another, and will this cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection? and (3) Does IA improve refractive outcomes? A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database for articles on each of these topics that identified 1313 articles, of which 166 were included in the review. For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accurate formula over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum and in both the short eye (AL, ≤22.0 mm) and long eye (AL, ≥26.0 mm) subgroups. Other formulas that performed well in the short-eye subgroup were the Olsen (4-factor), Haigis, and Hill-radial basis function (RBF) 1.0. In the long-eye group, the other formulas that performed well included the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen (4-factor), or Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment. All biometry devices delivered highly reproducible measurements, and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric variables between devices. The differences seen resulted in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection. The main difference found between devices was the ability to measure successfully through dense cataracts, with swept-source OCT-based machines performing better than partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry devices. Intraoperative aberrometry generally improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surgery when the BUII and Hill-RBF, Barrett toric calculator, or Barrett True-K formulas were not used. When they were used, IA did not result in better outcomes.

Accuracy of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on artificial intelligence

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to develop and assess the accuracy of a new intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation method based on machine learning techniques.

METHODS

The following data were retrieved for 260 eyes of 260 patients undergoing cataract surgery: preoperative simulated keratometry, mean keratometry of posterior surface, axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and white-to-white diameter; model and power of implanted IOL; and subjective refraction at 3 months post surgery. These data were used to train different machine learning models (k-Nearest Neighbor, Artificial Neural Networks, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, etc). Implanted lens characteristics and biometric data were used as input to predict IOL power and refractive outcomes. For external validation, a dataset of 52 eyes was used. The accuracy of the trained models was compared with that of the power formulas Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF v2.0.

RESULTS

The SD of the prediction error in order of lowest to highest was the new method (designated Karmona) (0.30), Haigis (0.36), Holladay 2 (0.38), Barrett Universal II (0.38), and Hill-RBF v2.0 (0.40). Using the Karmona method, 90.38% and 100% of eyes were within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The method proposed emerged as the most accurate to predict IOL power.

Development of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on lens position estimated with optical coherence tomography

A new method is developed and validated for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on paraxial ray tracing of the postoperative IOL positions, which are obtained with the use of anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Of the 474 eyes studied, 137 and 337 were grouped into training and validation sets, respectively. The positions of the implanted IOLs of the training datasets were characterized with multiple linear regression analyses one month after the operations. A new regression formula was developed to predict the postoperative anterior chamber depth with the use of the stepwise analysis results. In the validation dataset, postoperative refractive values were calculated according to the paraxial ray tracing of the cornea and lens based on the assumption of finite structural thicknesses with separate surface curvatures. The predicted refraction error was calculated as the difference of the expected postoperative refraction from the spherical-equivalent objective refraction values. The percentage error (within ±0.50 diopters) of the new formula was 84.3%. This was not significantly correlated to the axial length or keratometry. The developed formula yielded excellent postoperative refraction predictions and could be applicable to eyes with abnormal proportions, such as steep or flat corneal curvatures and short and long axial lengths.

Accuracy of the Hill-radial basis function method and the Barrett Universal II formula

PURPOSE

The aim was to assess the postoperative results of a biometric method using artificial intelligence (Hill-radial basis function 2.0), and data from a modern formula (Barrett Universal II) and the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula.

METHODS

Phacoemulsification and biconvex intraocular lens implantation were performed in 186 cataractous eyes. The diopters of intraocular lens were established with the Hill-radial basis function method, based on biometric data obtained using the Aladdin device. The required diopters of the intraocular lens were also calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula and with the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The differences between the manifest postoperative refractive errors and the planned refractive errors were calculated, as well as the percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the prediction error. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were also determined.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 70.13 years (SD = 10.67 years), and the mean axial length was 23.47 mm (range = 20.72-28.78 mm). The percentage of eyes within a prediction error of ±0.5 D was 83.62% using the Hill-radial basis function method, 79.66% with the Barrett Universal II formula, and 74.01% in the case of the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Clinical success was the highest when using the biometric method, based on pattern recognition. The results obtained using Barrett Universal II came a close second. Both methods performed better compared to a traditionally used formula.