Accuracy of predicted refraction with multifocal intraocular lenses using two biometry measurement devices and multiple intraocular lens power calculation formulas

Comparison of Hill-RBF 3.0 with Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay 1 to predict the accuracy of post-cataract surgery refractive outcomes in Indian eyes

PURPOSE

To compare Hill-RBF 3.0 with Barrett Universal II (BU II), SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Holladay 1 in predicting the accuracy of post-cataract surgery refractive outcomes in Indian eyes.

METHODS

In this prospective, comparative, observational study, consecutive patients with uncomplicated age-related cataracts undergoing uneventful phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were included. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) and median absolute errors were used to determine the accuracy of predicted postoperative target refractions.

RESULTS

A total of 219 eyes of 173 patients were enrolled. Based on the axial lengths (AL), the patients were classified into: AL <22 mm (short), 22-24.5 mm (normal), and >24.5 mm (long). BU II exhibited the lowest MAE for normal ALs (0.2683 ± 0.2790 D) as well as for the entire population (0.2764 ± 0.2764 D). For the short ALs, Hill RBF 3.0 exhibited the lowest MAE (0.3268 ± 0.3268 D), while for the long ALs, SRK/T showed the lowest MAE (0.2823 ± 0.2642 D). BU II exhibited the highest percentage of eyes of 57.5%, 95.4%, and 98.6% within ±0.25, ±0.75, and ±1.0 D of postoperative target refractions respectively, whereas Hill RBF 3.0 had the highest percentages of eyes (88.1%) within ±0.5 D of postoperative target refraction.

CONCLUSION

Hill-RBF 3.0 exhibited the least MAE for patients with short ALs, while BU II showed the least MAE for normal ALs as well as for the entire population and SRK/T for long ALs. This study is likely to aid surgeons in selecting the most appropriate IOL power formula, which thereby improves the refractive outcomes with utmost accuracy.

The effect of patient age on some new and older IOL power calculation formulas

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in different age groups using various IOL calculation formulas.

METHODS

Data from 421 eyes of 421 patients ≥60 years old (ages: 60-69, n = 131; 70-74, n = 105; 75-84, n = 158 and ≥85, n = 27), who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with SN60WF IOL implantation at John A. Moran Eye Center, Salt Lake City, USA, were retrospectively obtained. The SD of the prediction error (PE), median and mean absolute PEs and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated after constant optimizations for the following formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 and SRK/T. Results were compared between the different age groups.

RESULTS

Predictability rates within 0.25D were lower for the eldest age group compared with the other groups using the EVO 2.0 (33% vs. 37%-53%, p = 0.045), Kane (26% vs. 35%-50%, p = 0.034) and SRK/T (22% vs. 31%-49%, p = 0.002). Higher median absolute refractive errors for all formulas were observed in the oldest group [range: 0.39 D (Haigis, Hoffer QSR)-0.48 D (Kane)], followed by the youngest group [range: 0.30 D (RBF 3.0)-0.39 D (Holladay 1, SRK/T)] but did not reach statistical significance. No significant differences between the groups in the distribution parameter were seen.

CONCLUSION

Current IOL power calculation formulas may have variable accuracy for different age groups. This should be taken into account when planning cataract surgery to improve refractive outcomes.

Comparison of the formula accuracy for calculating multifocal intraocular lens power: a single center retrospective study in Korean patients

This study evaluated the accuracy of newer formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hoffer QST, and PEARL-DGS) and the Haigis formula in Korean patients with the Alcon TFNT multifocal intraocular lens. In total, 3100 randomly selected eyes of 3100 patients were retrospectively reviewed. After constant optimization, the standard deviation (SD) of the prediction error was assessed for the entire group, and the root mean square error was compared for short and long axial length (AL) subgroup analysis. The Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) was experimentally applied to the Haigis formula. All the newer formulas performed well, but they did not significantly outperform the Haigis formula. In addition, all the newer formulas exhibited significant myopic outcomes (- 0.23 to - 0.29 diopters) in long eyes. Application of the CMAL to the Haigis formula with single constant optimization produced similar behavior and higher correlation with the newer formulas. The CMAL-applied triple-optimized Haigis formula yielded a substantially smaller SD, even superior to the Barrett and Hoffer QST formulas. The AL modification algorithms such as the CMAL used in newer formulas to cope with optical biometry's overestimation of the AL in long eyes seemed to overcompensate, particularly in the long eyes of the East Asian population.

Comparing Predictive Accuracy of a Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer and an Optical Low Coherence Reflectometry Biometer

Purpose

To compare the refractive accuracy resulting from calculations based on measurements with a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer compared to calculations based on measurements with an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer at one month postoperatively.

Methods

This was a retrospective comparative non-interventional study of preoperative biometry and postoperative refraction and visual acuity of 200 eyes. All eyes had preoperative biometry with both the Argos (Movu, a Santec company) and Lenstar LS900 (Haag-Streit AG) devices. Data were collected for mean postoperative prediction error (directional and absolute), preoperative mean K, delta K (corneal astigmatism), axial length, and anterior chamber depth.

Results

The mean directional prediction error was -0.15 ± 0.47 D for Argos and -0.31 ± 0.50 D for Lenstar LS900, and there was a statistically significant mean of the differences (0.16 ± 0.24 D; p < 0.001). The mean absolute prediction error was 0.35 ± 0.34 D for Argos and 0.42 ± 0.41 D for Lenstar LS900, and there was a statistically significant mean of the differences (-0.07 ± 0.24 D; p < 0.001). Neither the differences in directional prediction error nor the differences in absolute prediction error were clinically significant.

Conclusion

The directional and absolute prediction accuracies were statistically significant, but not clinically different between the Argos and Lenstar LS900 devices. In addition, differences between preoperative K, AL, and ACD measurements were not clinically significant.

Repeatability and comparability of a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer in optical biometry

PURPOSE

To evaluate the reproducibility in the measurement of ocular biometric parameters using a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer and its comparability with an optical low coherence reflectometry biometer.

DESIGN

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study.

METHODS

45 right eyes of 45 patients diagnosed with cataract were included. Three successive biometric measurements with Anterion and one with Lenstar LS900 were performed on each patient. The following variables were collected: axial length (AXL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), flat K (K1), steep K (K2), central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT) and white-to-white distance (WTW). The intrasubject standard deviation (S_w) and the coefficient of Pearson "R" were calculated in order to assess the repeatability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) were obtained to evaluate the comparability between devices. A Bland-Altman plot was performed for each variable.

RESULTS

The coefficient of Pearson was excellent and statistically significant in the evaluation of the repeatability in all the variables. The highest values were 0.987 (AXL), 0.983 (CCT) and 0.942 (ACD). There were no statically significant differences between repeated measurements with Anterion in all the parameters. The ICC and CCC were excellent in the evaluation of AXL, CCT and ACD, and were also good in regard to K1, K2, LT and WTW.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing biometry with the SS-OCT Anterion is a reliable and reproducible procedure, and it is comparable with the Lenstar LS900.

Evaluation of IOL power calculation with the Kane formula for pediatric cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in the pediatric population.

METHODS

The charts of pediatric patients who underwent cataract surgery with in-the-bag IOL implantation with one of two IOL models (SA60AT or MA60AC) between 2012 and 2018 in The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, CanFada, were retrospectively reviewed. The accuracy of IOL power calculation with the Kane formula was evaluated in comparison with the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff Theoretical (SRK/T) formulas.

RESULTS

Sixty-two eyes of 62 patients aged 6.2 (IQR 3.2-9.2) years were included. The SD values of the prediction error obtained by Kane (1.38) were comparable with those by BUII (1.34), Hoffer Q (1.37), SRK/T (1.40), Holaday 1 (1.41), and Haigis (1.50), all p > 0.05. A significant difference was observed between the Hoffer Q and Haigis formulas (p = 0.039). No differences in the median and mean absolute errors were found between the Kane formula (0.54 D and 0.91 ± 1.04 D) and BUII (0.50 D and 0.88 ± 1.00 D), Hoffer Q (0.48 D and 0.88 ± 1.05 D), SRK/T (0.72 D and 0.97 ± 1.00 D), Holladay 1 (0.63 D and 0.94 ± 1.05 D), and Haigis (0.57 D and 0.98 ± 1.13 D), p = 0.099.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to investigate the Kane formula in pediatric cataract surgery. Our results place the Kane among the noteworthy IOL power calculation formulas in this age group, offering an additional means for improving IOL calculation in pediatric cataract surgery. The heteroscedastic statistical method was first implemented to evaluate formulas' predictability in children.

Prediction accuracy of No History IOL formulas for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic corneal refractive surgery

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods for extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery lacking historical data.

Setting

Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, and Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan, China.

Design

Retrospective case series.

Methods

Patients with ALs >= 25.0 mm and a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of EDOF IOLs were enrolled. A comparison was performed of the accuracy of 10 IOL methods lacking historical data, including Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, Potvin-Hill, "Average", 'minimum" and "maximum" IOL power on the ASCRS online post-refractive IOL calculator; Triple-S formula; and SToP formulas based on Holladay1 and SRK/T. IOL power was calculated with the abovementioned methods in 2 groups according to AL (Group1: 25.0 mm <= AL < 28.0 mm and Group2: AL >= 28.0 mm).

Results

Sixty-four eyes were included. Excellent outcomes were achieved with the "Minimum", Barrett TKNH, SToP (SRK/T) and Triple-S in the whole sample and subgroups, which led to similar median absolute error, mean absolute error, and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within +/- 0.5 D. In the whole sample, the Haigis-L and "Maximum" had a significantly higher absolute error than "Minimum", SToP (SRK/T) and Barrett TKNH. The "Maximum" also had a significantly lower percentage of eyes within +/- 0.5 D than the Barrett TKNH, and SToP (SRK/T) (15.6% vs 50% and 51.5%, all P<0.05 with Bonferroni correction).

Conclusions

No-history IOL formulas in predicting the EDOF IOL power in post-myopic refractive eyes remain challenging. The Barrett TKNH, Triple-S, "Minimum" and SToP (SRK/T) achieved the best accuracy when AL >= 25.0 mm, while the Barrett TKNH and SToP (SRK/T) were recommended when AL >= 28.0mm.

Toric IOL Calculation in Eyes With High Posterior Corneal Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To evaluate different calculation approaches for toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in cases with high posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of toric IOLs by a single surgeon were reviewed. Eyes with measured PCA of 0.80 diopters (D) or greater were included. Errors in the predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism were calculated for the Abulafia-Koch formula, vector summation of anterior keratometry with posterior tomography, and the Barrett toric calculator using predicted and measured PCA.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-three consecutive cases of toric IOL implantation were reviewed. Seventeen eyes (10%) had PCA of 0.80 D or greater and were investigated. The mean absolute error was the lowest with Barrett's measured PCA (0.55 ± 0.38) followed by Barrett's predicted PCA mean absolute error (0.65 ± 0.31), vector summation (0.69 ± 0.33), and the Abulafia-Koch formula (0.80 ± 0.36). The rate of eyes with prediction errors within 0.25 D or less was the highest for Barrett's measured PCA (29.4%) followed by Barrett's predicted PCA (5.9%) and no eyes for the Abulafia-Koch formula and vector summation. The mean centroid prediction errors were lowest for Barrett's measured PCA and Barrett's predicted PCA (0.14 ± 0.66 @70, 0.14 ± 0.73 @179, respectively), followed by vector summation (0.35 ± 0.70 @5), and the Abulafia-Koch formula (0.39 ± 0.80 @179).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that in cases of high PCA, the Barrett toric calculator using direct measurements of PCA may have a potential advantage over predicted PCA in toric IOL calculations and vector summation of the anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(12):820-825.].

Comparison of various intraocular lens formulas using a new high-resolution swept-source optical coherence tomographer

PURPOSE

To compare vergence, artificial intelligence, and combined intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer (SS-OCT) and to analyze their performance based on manifest and estimated refractive outcomes of cataract surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pécs Medical School, Pécs, Hungary.

DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis.

METHODS

Optical biometry readings of patients who underwent uneventful cataract removal and implantation of a monofocal acrylic IOL were used to predict IOL power with Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 2.0, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, and SRK/T. All the implanted IOLs were calculated by using the Haigis formula. The arithmetic prediction error and median and mean absolute refractive errors for all formulas were computed. The percentage of eyes within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.0 D of prediction error was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 95 eyes of 95 patients with a mean age of 68.80 ± 7.57 years were included. There was a statistically significant difference in absolute prediction error across the 8 IOL calculation formulas (P < .0001). Haigis showed the lowest mean absolute error, and it differed significantly from the BUII, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Ladas, RBF 2.0, and SRK/T formulas (P < .05). In terms of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, and ±1.0 D of prediction error, the Haigis formula showed the overall best performance.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that a recently developed SS-OCT provided accurate ocular biometry measurements before cataract surgery, and the Haigis formula incorporated in its software enabled precise calculation of IOL refractive power.

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.

Does Every Calculation Formula Fit for All Types of Intraocular Lenses? Optimization of Constants for Tecnis ZA9003 and ZCB00 Is Necessary

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the performance of intraocular lenses (IOLs) using power calculation formulas on different types of IOL. Materials and Methods: 120 eyes and four IOL types (BioLine Yellow Accurate Aspheric IOL (i-Medical), TECNIS ZCB00, TECNIS ZA9003 (Johnson & Johnson) (3-piece IOL) and Softec HD (Lenstec)) were analyzed. The performance of Haigis, Barret Universal II and SKR-II formulas were compared between IOL types. The mean prediction error (ME) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) were analyzed. Results: The overall percentage of eyes predicted within ±0.25 diopters (D) was 40.8% for Barret; 39.2% Haigis and 31.7% for SRK-II. Barret and Haigis had a significantly lower MAE than SRK-II (p < 0.05). The results differed among IOL types. The largest portion of eyes predicted within ±0.25 D was with the Barret formula in ZCB00 (33.3%) and ZA9003 (43.3%). Haigis was the most accurate in Softec HD (50%) and SRK-II in Biolline Yellow IOL (50%). ZCB00 showed a clinically significant hypermetropic ME compared to other IOLs. Conclusions: In general, Barret formulas had the best performance as a universal formula. However, the formula should be chosen according to the type of IOL in order to obtain the best results. Constant optimizations are necessary for the Tecnis IOL ZCB00 and ZA9003, as all of the analyzed formulas achieved a clinically significant poor performance in this type of IOL. ZCB00 also showed a hypermetropic shift in ME in all the formulas.

Agreement between anterior segment parameters obtained by a new ultrasound biomicroscopy and a swept-source fourier-domain anterior segment optical coherence tomography

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement between anew UBM and an SS-OCT. Methods: The scans of the right eye of each volunteer were obtained using the two devices. Data were fitted and recorded including: central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous depth (AQD) (the distance from endothelium to lens), angle-to-angle distance (ATA), lens thickness (LT), diameter of the lens in the horizontal direction (LDia^angle: distance between the sharp angles on both sides of the lens, LDia^arc: distance between the vertex of the circular arcs on both sides of the lens), anterior and posterior corneal radius (Rf and Rb). Results: 25 eyes were included in this study. It could be seen that the differences in CCT, LDia^angle, Rf measured by the two instruments were not statistically significant. Bland-Altman analysis plots of CCT, LDia^angle and Rf showed mean differences of 0.2 µm, 0.01mm and 0.0mm for the 2 devices, respectively. Conclusion: The values of CCT, LDia^angle and Rf obtained via two instruments were not clinically interchangeable and the AQD, ATA, LT, and Rb have poor agreement affected by accommodation. We can estimate the real lens diameter by subtracting 0.61 ± 0.43mm when the lens diameter can only be simulated with SS-OCT.

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas in cataract patients with steep corneal curvature

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of five kinds of intraocular lens calculation formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay and Barrett Universal Ⅱ) in cataract patients with steep curvature cornea ≥ 46.0 diopters.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of cataract phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation in patients with steep curvature cornea (corneal curvature ≥ 46D). The refractive prediction errors of IOL power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer Q, and Barrett Universal II) using User Group for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB) constants were evaluated and compared. Objective refraction results were assessed at one month postoperatively. According to axial length (AL), all patients were divided into three groups: short AL group (<22mm), normal AL group (>22 to ≤24.5mm) and long AL group (>24.5mm). Calculate the refractive error and absolute refractive error (AE) between the actual postoperative refractive power and the predicted postoperative refractive power. The covariance analysis was used for the comparison of five formulas in each group. The correlation between the absolute refractive error and AL from every formula were analyzed by Pearson correlation test, respectively.

RESULT

Total 112 eyes of 83 cataract patients with steep curvature cornea were collected. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) was a covariate in the short AL group in the covariance analysis of absolute refractive error (P<0.001). The SRK/T and Holladay formula had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) (0.47D), there were statistically significant differences in MAE between the five formulas for short AL group (P = 0.024). The anterior chamber depth had no significant correlation in the five calculation formulas in the normal AL group and long AL group (P = 0.521, P = 0.609 respectively). In the normal AL group, there was no significant difference in MAE between the five calculation formulas (P = 0.609). In the long AL group, Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest MAE (0.35), and there were statistically significant differences in MAE between the five formulas (P = 0.012). Over the entire AL range, the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest MAE and the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D, and ± 1.50 D (69.6%, 93.8%, and 98.2% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared to SRK/T, Haigis, Hoffer Q, and Holladay, Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula is more accurate in predicting the IOL power in the cataract patients with steep curvature cornea ≥ 46.0 diopters.

Evaluation of Barrett universal II formula for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian Indian population

Purpose:

Barrett Universal II (BU-II) is considered as one of the most accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas; however, there is no literature studying the same in Indian population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of BU-II formula in prediction of IOL power for cataract surgery in Asian Indian population. This was an institutional, prospective, observational study.

Methods:

Patients with senile cataract who underwent phacoemulsification with posterior chamber IOL implantation were enrolled in the study. Biometry data from Lenstar-LS900 was used and IOL power was calculated using four IOL formulas: modified SRK-II, SRK/T, Olsen, and BU-II. Primary outcome was measured as the prediction error in postoperative refraction for each formula and secondary outcome was measured as the difference in mean absolute errors between the four formulas. SPSS Version-21 with P < 0.05 considered significant.

Results:

A total of 244 eyes were included in the study and were divided into three groups in accordance to axial length (AL): Group 1 (AL: 22–24.5 mm; N = 135), Group 2 (AL <22 mm; N = 53), and Group 3 (AL >24.5 mm; N = 56). BU-II formula gave the lowest mean absolute error (0.37 ± 0.27D) and median absolute error (0.34) in predicted postoperative refraction in the entire study population. When compared with the other formulas, mean absolute error was significantly lower in all three groups (P < 0.0005) as well, except for Olsen formula in the normal AL group, where the results were comparable (P = 0.742).

Conclusion:

BU-II performed as the most accurate formula in the prediction of postoperative refraction over a wide range of ALs.

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.

Multifocal and Extended Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lenses in 2020

Ophthalmic surgeons have been overwhelmed by the influx of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) options in recent years, with close to 100 IOLs on the market in 2020. This practical and technical update on a representative group of established as well as newly launched multifocal IOLs on the market focuses on multifocal IOLs, including extended depth-of-focus lenses. We also describe the optical basis of lens platforms used and thorough preoperative planning to aid decision making. This allows the surgeon the knowledge base to deliver the required relative customized spectacle independence with the least photic phenomenon and loss of contrast possible while achieving high individual patient satisfaction. Data of reviewed IOLs displayed in tabular format include mean monocular uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution), with standard deviations and ranges where available. The range of vision targeted, pupil dependence, toric availability, as well as type of optical platform, are provided as a practical guide to demystify existing terminology on the market that may create interest around a seemingly new design that is actually not novel at all. Halos and glare experienced, levels of patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence achieved also are summarized. A wide range of multifocal IOLs options are available on the market to surgeons. Comprehensive patient selection and examination, combined with knowledge of the most recent options and adequate patient counseling, including neuroadaptation, can avoid dissatisfaction. Many recently available IOLs are awaiting formal results, but the methods by which we label and compare these types of IOLs must also be standardized.

Accuracy of eight intraocular lens power calculation formulas for segmented multifocal intraocular lens

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of eight different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for a segmented multifocal IOL.

METHODS

A total of 53 eyes of 41 adult cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation with the SBL-3 segmented multifocal IOL between January 1, 2017 and January 31, 2019 were included in this retrospective study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained using an IOL Master. Manifest refraction was performed at least 4wk postoperatively. Accuracy of the eight formulas [Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T] was analyzed.

RESULTS

Using current lens constants, all formulas exhibited errors of slight myopic shift in refractive prediction. The Barrett Universal II formula had a significantly lower median absolute error (MedAE) than did Holladay 1 (P=0.02), Kane (P=0.001) and Hill-RBF 2.0 (P<0.001) formulas. The Haigis formula had a lower MedAE value than did the Hill-RBF 2.0 formula (P=0.005). Differences in MedAE values among SRK/T, EVO and Hoffer Q formulas were not significant. After optimizing lens constants, the MedAE values of all formulas were reduced; significant changes were noted for EVO (P=0.022), Haigis (P=0.048), Hill-RBF 2.0 (P=0.014), Holladay 1 (P=0.045) and Kane (P=0.022) formulas. All formulas performed equally well after optimization of lens constants (P=0.203).

CONCLUSION

All eight formulas tend to result in a myopic shift when using current lens constants. Optimized lens constants improve the accuracy of these formulas among adult Chinese patients.

Influence of pupil dilation on the Barrett universal II (new generation), Haigis (4th generation), and SRK/T (3rd generation) intraocular lens calculation formulas: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Despite the surge in the number of cataract surgeries, there is limited information available regarding the influence of pupil dilation on predicted postoperative refraction and its comparison with recommended various intraocular lens power calculated using the different parameters. We used three different IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II (Barrett) (5-variable formula), Haigis (3-variable formula), and SRK/T (2-variable formula), in order to investigate the potential effect of pupil dilation on the predicted postoperative refraction (PPR) and recommended intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 150 eyes. All variables were measured and calculated using a ZEISS IOL Master 700. The following variables were measured before and after dilation: anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW). PPR and recommended IOL power were calculated by Barrett, Haigis, and SRK/T IOL calculation formulas. The change in each variable before and after dilation, and the correlations between all changes were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Spearman's rank-order correlation test, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean absolute change (MAC) in PPR before and after dilation was found to be highest in the Barrett formula. Significant differences were found between each MAC (P <  0.0001). Significant changes were observed before and after dilation in ACD and LT (P <  0.0001), but not in WTW. Using the Barrett and Haigis formulas, there was a significant positive correlation between the change in PPR and change in ACD (P <  0.0001), and a negative correlation between change in PPR and change in LT (P <  0.0001). The correlations were strongest with the Barret formula followed by the Haigis, particularly in terms of LT. Changes in PPR determined by the Barrett formula also demonstrated a significant positive correlation with changes in WTW (P = 0.022). The recommended IOL power determined using Barrett and Haigis changed before and after dilation in 23.3 and 19.3% cases respectively, while SRK/T showed no change.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of PPR and recommended IOL power, pupil dilation influenced mostly the Barrett formula. Given the stronger correlation between the changes in PPR when using Barrett and the changes in ACD, LT, and WTW, changes in ACD, LT, and WTW significantly affect how dilation influences the Barrett formula. Determining how dilation influences each formula and other variables is key to improving the accuracy of IOL calculations.

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.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements.

Methods

The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed.

Results

There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT.

Conclusions

Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using Anterior Chamber Depth from Two Devices with Barrett Universal II Formula

Purpose

To compare the preoperative measurements of the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by the IOLMaster and Catalys; additionally, to compare the accuracy of the IOL power calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula using the two different measurements.

Setting

University of California, Irvine, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute in Irvine, California.

Design

Retrospective comparative study.

Methods

This study included 144 eyes of 90 patients with a mean age of 72.0 years (range 40.8 to 92.1 years) that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery using Catalys. Preoperative measurements of ACD were taken by the IOLMaster and Catalys. Manifest refraction and refractive spherical equivalent were measured 1 month postoperatively. Expected refractive results were compared with actual postoperative refractive results.

Results

The correlation between the ACD values from the two devices was good (r = 0.80). The Catalys ACD measurements yielded a larger ACD compared to the IOLMaster, with a mean difference of 0.22 mm (P < 0.0001). The correlation between the postoperative and predicted RSE of the implanted IOL power was excellent (r = 0.96). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean absolute error derived from the IOLMaster, 0.37 diopter (D) ± 0.34 (SD), and the Catalys, 0.37 ± 0.35 D (P=0.50).

Conclusions

The Catalys biometry yielded a significantly larger ACD value than the IOLMaster. This difference in ACD value, however, did not reflect in a statistically significant difference in IOL power calculation and refractive prediction error using the Barrett Universal II Formula.

Visual Performance after a Unilateral or Bilateral Implantation of Enlarged Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens in Patients with Cataract: A Prospective Clinical Trial

Purpose

To investigate visual performances after a unilateral or bilateral implantation of enlarged depth-of-focus intraocular lens in patients with cataract.

Methods

In this prospective study, uneventful phacoemulsification and TECNIS® Symfony intraocular lens implantation were performed in 20 eyes of 17 patients. At postoperative 1, 4, and 12 weeks, the logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution visual acuity at far, intermediate, and near distances and the spherical equivalent in manifest refraction and automated refraction were measured. A questionnaire was used to investigate glare, spectacle dependency, and satisfaction at 12 weeks. The mean numerical error and mean absolute error were compared between intraocular lens formulas to assess the best-fit formula.

Results

The logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution visual acuity significantly improved to 0.02 at far, 0.02 at intermediate, and 0.27 at near distances at 12 weeks (p < 0.05). Spherical equivalent was −0.79 D on automated refraction and was significantly lower than −0.26 D measured on manifest refraction. Patients' satisfaction score was 9.06, 8.94, and 6.65 for far, intermediate, and near distances, respectively. Near glasses were required in 5 patients and 2 patients complained of photic phenomenon. Visual performances were not significantly different between bilateral and unilateral implanted patients. No patients reported bilateral imbalance due to unilateral surgery. The mean numerical error was closest to 0 D using the Barrett Universal II formula. The mean absolute error was not significantly different between these formulas.

Conclusion

Unilateral or bilateral implantation of the enlarged depth-of-focus intraocular lens seems to be equally effective in improving visual performances in patients with cataract.

[Comparison of two optical biometric devices for intraocular lens calculation]

BACKGROUND

Modern cataract surgery not only consists of a minimally invasive lens extraction but also of the implantation of a suitable intraocular lens.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective trial was a comparison of the predicted refractive error of two optical biometers, the IOLMaster 500 and LenStar LS 900 for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a prospective, analytical, comparative, non-masked study. A total of 86 eyes of 86 patients were examined and measured with both instruments before and after uneventful cataract surgery. Primary outcome measures were the differences of the predicted refractive error of both instruments. The predicted refractive error was calculated with different formulas. The results were compared to each other, to the desired target refraction as well as to the postoperative spherical equivalent.

RESULTS

The mean differences in predicted refractive error of both instruments varied between 0.9 ± 0.19 (standard deviation) diopters (D) and 0.18 ± 0.30 D depending on the chosen formula. The IOLMaster 500 predicted less difference to the desired target refraction as well as to the spherical equivalent than the LenStar LS 900 with nearly all formulas.

CONCLUSION

Both devices generated reproducible exact data with only a small deviation from the desired target refraction and from the postoperative spherical equivalent. There were statistically significant differences based on the chosen a‑constants as well as the utilized measurement methods of both instruments.

Comparison of Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery

IMPORTANCE

This study represents a novel comparison of recently introduced intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

BACKGROUND

To compare current new generation formulas for calculating the intraocular lens power for a standard cohort of patients undergoing cataract and lens replacement surgery in a private group practice in Australia.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series comparison.

PARTICIPANTS

Postoperative results from 400 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an SN60WF intraocular lens post cataract removal by 12 surgeons were used.

METHODS

Refractive outcomes were compared with expected targets to determine the predicted refractive outcomes using the Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal II and readily available third or fourth generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean absolute predicted error.

RESULTS

The mean absolute predicted difference ranged from 0.30 to 0.34 D. There was no overall significant difference in the predicted difference or variance between formulas. All formulas achieved greater than 78.3% of eyes within ±0.5 D of intended refraction. The Hill-radial basis function and Barrett formulas provided the lowest mean numerical error compared with existing formulas in short and long eyes, respectively. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest percentage of refractive surprises (>1 D from predicted error) across all axial lengths.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Acceptable outcomes can be achieved with optical biometry, consistent surgical technique and use of current intraocular lens power calculation formulas. The Barrett Universal II formula may provide the lowest risk of refractive surprise compared with other intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis or Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia

Intraocular power calculation is challenging for patients who have previously undergone corneal refractive surgery. The sources of prediction errors for these eyes are well known; however, the numerous formulas and methods available for calculating intraocular lens power in these cases are eloquent testimony to the absence of a definitive solution. This review discusses some of the available methods for improving the accuracy for predicting the refractive outcome for these patients. It focuses mainly on the methods available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) online calculator and provides some practical guidelines for cataract surgeons who encounter these challenging cases.

Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry

A meta-analysis to compare ocular biometry measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry (Lenstar LS900; Haag Streit) and partial coherence interferometry (the IOLMaster optical biometer; Carl Zeiss Meditec). A systematic literature search was conducted for articles published up to August 6th 2015 in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database and Wanfang Data. A total of 18 studies involving 1921 eyes were included. There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (mean difference [MD] 0 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.08 to 0.08 mm; p = 0.92), anterior chamber depth (MD 0.02 mm; 95% CI −0.07 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.67), flat keratometry (MD −0.05 D; 95% CI −0.16 to 0.06 D; p = 0.39), steep keratometry (MD −0.09 D; 95% CI −0.20 to 0.03 D; p = 0.13), and mean keratometry (MD −0.15 D; 95% CI −0.30 to 0.00 D; p = 0.05). The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD −0.14 mm; 95% CI −0.25 to −0.02 mm; p = 0.02). In conclusion, there was no difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster. However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices. Apart from the WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with both devices.

Accuracy of optical biometry combined with Placido disc corneal topography for intraocular lens power calculation

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of a new optical biometer for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive eyes of patients undergoing cataract surgery with the same IOL model were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Axial length (AL) and corneal power were measured with an optical biometer based on optical low-coherence interferometry and Placido-disc corneal topography. IOL power was calculated with the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. For each formula the lens constant was optimized in retrospect in order to achieve a mean prediction error (PE) of zero (difference between the predicted and the postoperative refraction). Median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with PE ±0.50 D were calculated.

RESULTS

Seventy-four eyes of 74 cataract patients were enrolled. The MedAE was 0.25 D with all formulas. A PE within ±0.50 D was obtained in 89.04% of cases with the Hoffer Q and SRK/T formulas, and in 87.67% of cases with the Holladay 1 formula.

CONCLUSIONS

The optical biometer investigated in the present study provides accurate measurements for IOL power calculation.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Formulas Involving 148 Eyes with Long Axial Lengths: A Retrospective Chart-Review Study

Purpose. This study aims to compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with long axial lengths from Chinese patients subjected to cataract surgery. Methods. A total of 148 eyes with an axial length of >26 mm from 148 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation were included. The Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas were used to calculate the refractive power of the intraocular lenses and the postoperative estimated power. Results. Overall, the Haigis formula achieved the lowest level of median absolute error 1.025 D (P < 0.01 for Haigis versus each of the other formulas), followed by SRK/T formula (1.040 D). All formulas were least accurate when eyes were with axial length of >33 mm, and median absolute errors were significantly higher for those eyes than eyes with axial length = 26.01-30.00 mm. Absolute error was correlated with axial length for the SRK/T (r = 0.212, P = 0.010) and Hoffer Q (r = 0.223, P = 0.007) formulas. For axial lengths > 33 mm, eyes exhibited a postoperative hyperopic refractive error. Conclusions. The Haigis and SRK/T formulas may be more suitable for calculating intraocular lens power for eyes with axial lengths ranging from 26 to 33 mm. And for axial length over 33 mm, the Haigis formula could be more accurate.

Cataract

Cataract is the leading cause of reversible blindness and visual impairment globally. Blindness from cataract is more common in populations with low socioeconomic status and in developing countries than in developed countries. The only treatment for cataract is surgery. Phacoemulsification is the gold standard for cataract surgery in the developed world, whereas manual small incision cataract surgery is used frequently in developing countries. In general, the outcomes of surgery are good and complications, such as endophthalmitis, often can be prevented or have good ouctomes if properly managed. Femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery, an advanced technology, can automate several steps; initial data show no superiority of this approach over current techniques, but the results of many large clinical trials are pending. The greatest challenge remains the growing 'backlog' of patients with cataract blindness in the developing world because of lack of access to affordable surgery. Efforts aimed at training additional cataract surgeons in these countries do not keep pace with the increasing demand associated with ageing population demographics. In the absence of strategie that can prevent or delay cataract formation, it is important to focus efforts and resources on developing models for efficient delivery of cataract surgical services in underserved regions. For an illustrated summary of this Primer, visit: http://go.nature.com/eQkKll.