Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula integrated into a commercially available optical biometer when using a preloaded single-piece intraocular lens

Comparative Analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas (Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, and Ladas Super Formula): Which One Is More Accurate?

Background: The most widely used contemporary intraocular lens power calculation formulas are the Kane formula, Barrett Universal II formula, Hill-Radial Basis Function, and Ladas Super Formula, each of which was developed to improve postoperative refractive accuracy. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of these formulas to evaluate their predictive accuracy across diverse biometric profiles. Methods: A total of 210 eyes that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed in this study. This study was designed as a retrospective observational investigation. The biometric parameters of the intraocular lens were evaluated using the ARGOS optical biometer. Refractive intraocular lens power calculations were performed using the formulas, and the resulting values were systematically compared to assess predictive accuracy. In our research, a parametric approach was adopted by applying ANOVA repeated measures analysis. Multiple measurements were evaluated through homogeneity of covariances. Pairwise comparisons between formula-derived values were conducted using the Bonferroni test to identify significant differences. A paired-sample t-test was used to compare the spherical equivalent levels calculated at the first and last controls. Potential correlations were examined using Pearson correlation analysis. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between formulas. The differences among the formulas were caused by the values obtained from the Ladas Super Formula being significantly higher than the others. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the data obtained from the formulas. The spheric equivalent values were similar, with no statistically significant difference. Conclusions: This study reinforces the notion that modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas exhibit a high degree of accuracy and correlation in predicting postoperative refractive outcomes.

Functional outcomes and quality of life after AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens implantation in a real-world study

The extended depth-of-focus AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens technology offers promising features for presbyopia management, evaluated in this research in a 6 months real-world setting. Prospective interventional mono-centric study including 40 patients who underwent elective bilateral phacoemulsification. We performed one pre-operative visit (V0) and one evaluation six months post-operatively (V1), evaluating uncorrected and corrected visual acuity for near (UNVA/CNVA), intermediate (UIVA/CIVA) and far (UDVA/UCVA), slit-lamp evaluation, tomography with static pupillometry, endothelial cell count and contrast sensitivity chart. In order to assess post-operative Quality of Life, we administered the patients McAlinden's Quality of Vision test and Morlock's Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire. We divided eyes in with Toric-IOL and with non-Toric IOL. A total of 36 eyes received non-tonic IOL implantation, whereas 44 eyes received toric IOL implantation. There were no statistically significant disparities observed in visual outcome measures and contrast sensitivity between the toric group and the non-toric group. Furthermore, we assessed the predictive preoperative refractive astigmatism (PPRA) and residual refractive astigmatism (RRA) in both cohorts, and no statistical significance was found between the two cohorts (p = 0.08). Twenty-one (53%) patients reported total independence from their glasses at all distances. The mean difference between the predicted and measured refractive error, as calculated by spherical equivalent, was 0.09 D. AcrySof IQ Vivity is a well-tolerated and effective IOL with optimal refractive target for both distant and intermediate vision, needing slight spherical addition for the best near vision. Great questionnaire-based satisfaction was reported by the patients.

Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explantation or secondary intervention: 2022 survey with update of long-term trends

PURPOSE

To assess the complications that resulted in the explantation or secondary intervention with foldable intraocular lenses (IOLs).

SETTING

University setting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

DESIGN

Survey study.

METHODS

For the 25th consecutive year, surgeons were surveyed regarding complications associated with foldable IOLs requiring explantation or secondary intervention over the 2022 calendar year. These forms were made available online using the ASCRS and ESCRS websites and a fax-on-demand service. Surgeons completed 1 survey for each foldable IOL requiring explantation or secondary intervention. Further analysis determined complication trends related to specific IOL styles, materials, and types over the past 16 years (2007 to 2022).

RESULTS

103 completed surveys were returned in 2022 contributing to a total of 1627 tabulated surveys since 2007. In the 2022 survey, dislocation/decentration continued to be the most common complication overall. Glare/optical aberrations was a common complication associated with multifocal IOLs continuing a 16-year trend. In addition, hydrophilic acrylic IOLs as well as some silicone lenses in eyes with asteroid hyalosis demonstrated calcification as the most common complication necessitating explantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Dislocation/decentration remains the leading cause of explantation in most IOL types. Glare/optical aberrations continue to be an associated complication of multifocal IOLs suggesting this ongoing issue has yet to be resolved with this type of IOL. In addition, calcification of hydrophilic acrylic lenses and silicone lenses is a rare event but continues to occur.

Network Meta-analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula Accuracy in 1016 Eyes With Long Axial Length

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature and quantitatively synthesize the currently available evidence to compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with long axial length (AL).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and June 2022. Included were prospective or retrospective clinical studies reporting the following outcomes in cataract patients with long AL (ie, ≥26 mm): percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D). Network meta-analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.2.1).

RESULTS

Ten prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1016 eyes and 11 calculation formulas, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 and ±0.50 D, the Olsen, Kane, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) all had insignificantly higher percentages compared with others. Considering the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D, the original and modified Wang-Koch adjustment formulas for Holladay 1 (H1-WK and H1-MWK) and EVO formulas showed superiority, but the difference was insignificant. This network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the widely used Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, the Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas had higher percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D (all odds ratios >1 but P >.05). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 D, the Olsen (96.4%), Kane (77.5%), and EVO (75.9%) formulas had the highest probability of being in the top 3 of the 11 formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

The Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas may perform better than others in calculating IOL power in eyes with long AL. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty in this regard and the accuracy of these formulas in highly myopic eyes should be confirmed in studies based on large multicenter registries.