Glycolytic overload and the genesis of breast cancer.

J. Robson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9877(84)90160-9

IF: 4.7

1984-03-01

Medical Hypotheses

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

IOL calculation in standard situation

Timo Eppig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16504

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:IOL calculation in cataract surgery is a highly standardized process assisted by various diagnostic devices and computerized formulas. There are still some uncertainties regarding preoperative measurements and the postoperative effective lens position resulting in unforeseeable refractive errors. We will discuss the procedures and pitfalls in standard situation intraocular lens calculation, including the differences in diagnostic equipment used for IOL calculation and the precautions when using standard IOL formulae. We will also discuss the major differences of IOL calculation formulas, including empirical formulas, formular based on gaussian optics, ray tracing, and new approaches based on machine learning/artificial intelligence.

ophthalmology
IOL calculation in complex cases

Achim Langenbucher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16473

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Ocular biometry is a routine procedure before cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation. In most cases optical biometry is used which is known to be highly reliable. However, there are cases where standard IOL power calculation fails and achieved refraction deviates significantly from formula predicted refraction. Especially in patients with a history of refractive surgery or after corneal grafting or pterygium removal calculation of an appropriate lens might be challenging. The purpose of this talk is to show which clinical cases in general have a high risk for inappropriate prediction of the refractive outcome. Different calculation concepts are discussed which could help to overcome refractive surprises. At the end, some challenging clinical examples are presented and discussed.

ophthalmology
Error Sources and Correction of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Corneal Refractive Surgery

XU Bai-sheng,GU Yang-shun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-5803.2013.03.005

2013-01-01

Abstract:As the increasing popularity of corneal refractive surgery and the aging of the society population,it presents a major challenge in accurate calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract patients with prior refractive surgery.To cope with this situation,great efforts have been made to reveal the sources of calculation error and available corrective process.Essentially,the instrument error,the keratometer index error and the IOL formula error are considered to be the main three sources,whereas other biometric measurements (e.g.axial length) contribute slightly.Numerous established algorithms aim to reduce I0L prediction error mainly through postoperative corneal power correction or direct adjustment of calculated IOL power.However,it presents a confusing of the variety of procedures and formulas for the controversy of optimal choice still going on,so it is important to make comprehensive consideration of reliable historic material,physician's experience,and patient' s expectation when faced with this issues clinically.
Pearls and pitfalls in IOL power calculation

Achim Langenbucher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16505

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Before cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation ocular biometry is performed as a standard procedure. From the biometric measures and the individual patient requirements an appropriate lens type is selected and the lens power is calculated based on a empirical/AI based, theoretical optical, or raytracing based calculation scheme. In this talk we give an overview on the most relevant calculation strategies and discuss the advantages and drawbacks of the most commonly used IOL power calculation concepts. Some systematic errors inherent to the calculation schemes and the clinical consequences are discussed.

ophthalmology
Theoretical approach to intraocular lens calculation using Gaussian optics

Thomas Olsen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(87)80128-1

1987-03-01

Abstract:A computer-assisted method of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power using formulas according to Gaussian optics is described. The method is more exact than current theoretical formulas, especially in calculating corneal power and in dealing with principal planes, and tends to give somewhat higher values for IOL power. One advantage of the theoretical approach is that the eye can be analyzed optically in a conventional manner, not only for the IOL power of emmetropia but also for the power of the biological lens, the total refractive power of the eye, and the magnification of the entire system. The relation to other theoretical formulas is discussed.

ophthalmology,surgery
IOL Formula Constants: Strategies for Optimization and Defining Standards for Presenting Data

Achim Langenbucher,Nóra Szentmáry,Alan Cayless,Michael Müller,Timo Eppig,Simon Schröder,Ekkehart Fabian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000514916

2021-01-01

Ophthalmic Research

Abstract:Purpose: The aim of this study is to present strategies for optimization of lens power (IOLP) formula constants and to show options how to present the results adequately. Methods: A dataset of N = 1,601 preoperative biometric values, IOLP data and postoperative refraction data was split into a training set and a test set using a random sequence. Based on the training set, we calculated the formula constants for established lens calculation formulae with different methods. Based on the test set, we derived the formula prediction error (PE) as difference of the achieved refraction from the formula predicted refraction. Results: For formulae with 1 constant, it is possible to back-calculate the individual constant for each case using formula inversion. However, this is not possible for formulae with >1 constant. In these cases, more advanced concepts such as non-linear optimization strategies are necessary to derive the formula constants. During cross-validation, measures such as the mean absolute or the root mean squared PE or the ratio of cases within mean absolute PE (MAE) limits could be used as quality measures. Conclusions: Different constant optimization concepts yield different results. To test the performance of optimized formula constants, a cross-validation strategy is mandatory. We recommend performance curves, where the ratio of cases within absolute PE limits is plotted against the MAE.

ophthalmology
Prediction accuracy of IOL calculation formulas using the ASCRS online calculator for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

Christoph Lwowski,Katarzyna Pawlowicz,Lisa Hinzelmann,Mahmoud Adas,Thomas Kohnen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000238

Abstract:Background: To evaluate IOL calculation formulas provided by an online calculation tool from the ASCRS for an extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOL after previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Design: Retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery or refractive lens exchange with implantation of a diffractive EDOF IOL and who had a history of myopic LASIK were included. Biometry, refractive data regarding the LASIK procedure, target refraction, and postoperative refraction were collected. Mean prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and the number of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D), ±1.0 D, ±1.5 D, and ±2.0 D were calculated with the following formulas from the ASCRS calculator: Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, Barrett No History, Masket, modified Masket, and the average of all formulas (average). Results: Twenty-five eyes matched the inclusion criteria. Mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.81 ± 0.69 D; the mean pre-LASIK SE was -6.4 ± 3.63 D. The formulas ranked by MAE were Shammas (0.7 ± 0.75 D), Haigis-L (0.72 ± 0.57 D), average (0.79 ± 0.8 D), Barrett True-K (1.14 ± 0.89 D), modified Masket (1.4 ± 1.15 D), Barrett No History (1.45 ± 0.7D ), and Masket (1.64 ± 1.27 D). The formulas with the most eyes within ±0.5 D were average (52%), Shammas (48%), and Haigis-L (44%) formulas. Conclusions: Calculation of IOLs in eyes with a history of refractive surgery remains a challenge. In this study, the Shammas and Haigis-L formulas performed best regarding MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D; however, the average of all formulas delivered reasonable results.
Comparative Clinical Accuracy Analysis of the Newly Developed ZZ IOL and Four Existing IOL Formulas for Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

Zhang Jun,Shao Jie,Zheng Li,Shen Ye,Zhao Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7

IF: 2.086

2021-01-01

BMC Ophthalmology

Abstract:Background Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. Study design Retrospective study. Methods Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. Results This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing ( P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL ( P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero ( P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.02), Barrett true K ( P = 0.03), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.03), Barrett True K ( P = 0.02), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively ( P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). Conclusions The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Nikolaus Luft,Jakob Siedlecki,Benedikt Schworm,Thomas C. Kreutzer,Wolfgang J. Mayer,Siegfried G. Priglinger,Martin Dirisamer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63118-0

IF: 4.6

2020-04-06

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Abstract With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference – a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [−0.36 ± 0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.

multidisciplinary sciences
Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Wiktor Stopyra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.16506

2024-01-01

Acta Ophthalmologica

Abstract:Challenges in IOL power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery are caused by difficulties in accurately determining corneal refractive power and in predicting the effective lens position. Three factors contribute to inaccurate corneal refractive power estimation ‐ inaccurate measurement of anterior corneal curvature by standard keratometry or corneal topography, inaccurate calculation of total corneal power from the anterior corneal curvature can result from using the standardized value for the refractive index of cornea (1.3375) and finally changes in posterior corneal curvature. There are three categories of methods proposed based on the use of historical data acquired prior to the corneal refractive surgery (formulas using only historical data, no historical data or a combination of historical data and current data). The most frequently used methods of IOL power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery are discussed and their accuracy are compared. The latest studies and meta‐analyses in this area are presented. Despite availability of new measurement technologies and development of new IOL calculation formulas, further advances are needed to improve outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone corneal refractive surgery.

ophthalmology
Intraocular Lens Optic Power Calculation on “Short” Eyes. A Review

K. B. Pershin,N. F. Pashinova,I. A. Likh,A. Yu. Tsygankov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18008/1816-5095-2022-2-272-279

2022-06-30

Ophthalmology in Russia

Abstract:In recent years, due to advances in surgical technique, instruments and design of intraocular lenses (IOLs), patient expectations of cataract surgery have increased significantly, often matching those after refractive interventions. A number of factors affect postoperative visual acuity, including the presence of concomitant pathology in patients, the experience of the surgeon, the choice of IOL model and other factors. In the presence of “short” eyes, with an axial length of less than 22 mm, the formulas available in the arsenal for calculating the optical power of the IOL are less accurate than for eyes with normal sizes, which is of great difficulty for the surgeon. The most important factors include the choice of model and calculation of IOL optic power associated in case of failure with patient dissatisfaction with the treatment. The review discusses the definitions of the concepts of hyperopia, microphthalmos and nanophthalmos. The sources of errors are presented when choosing a formula for calculating the IOL optic power, including the use of various instruments for measuring axial length and other parameters of the eye. The necessity of optimizing the IOL constants for “short” eyes is given. The effectiveness of the main currently used formulas is considered, including Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK / T, Barrett Universal, Super Formula, Olsen, T2, Hill-RBF, Kane. Progress in lens disease surgery does not stand still and is aimed at improving diagnostic equipment and standardizing and synchronizing various types of biometers, increasing the number of variables in formulas for calculating the IOL optic power, further standardizing diopter power in the manufacturing of IOLs, and the need to develop a unified formula for calculating optical power Artificial Intelligence IOL with the possibility of its constant access to a huge array of preoperative research data manhole and postoperative assessment of results. Management of patients with an axial length of less than 22.00 mm remains a challenge for ophthalmic surgeons, given the difficulties encountered in choosing an IOL and the complications of surgery. The available formulas for calculating the IOL optic powerneed to be adjusted for this group of patients.
IOL Calculation using the ESCRS Online Calculator in Pediatric Eyes Undergoing Lens Extraction

Christoph Lwowski,Yaroslava Wenner,Klemens Paul Kaiser,Eva Sapok,Thomas Kohnen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001433

2024-02-26

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the ESCRS online calculator for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in children undergoing lens extraction and primary IOL implantation Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany Design: Retrospective, consecutive case series Methods: We included eyes that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation (Acrysof SN60AT, Alcon, Fort Worth, Tx, USA) due to congenital or juvenile cataract. We compared the mean prediction error (MPE), mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE, MedAE) of formulas provided by the recently introduced online calculator provided by the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS) to the SRK/T formula, as well as the number of eyes within ±0.5, ±1.0, ±2.0 diopters (D) of target refraction. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured by retinoscopy 4 to 12 weeks after surgery. Results: Sixty eyes from forty-seven patients with a mean age of 6.5 years ± 3.2 met the inclusion criteria. Mean axial length was 22.27mm ± 1.19. Mean preoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was -0.25 D ± 3.78 and mean postoperative SE was 0.69 D ± 1.53. The MedAE was lowest in the SRK/T formula (0.56 D, ± 1.03) performed significantly better (p = 0.037) than Hoffer QST and Kane, followed by BUII (0.64D, ± 0.92), Pearl DGS (0.65D, ± 0.94), EVO (0.69D, ± 0.94), Hoffer QST (0.75D, ± 0.99), and Kane (0.78D, ± 0.99). All of those were significantly above zero (p < 0.001). Forty-one eyes received an intraoperative optic capture (68%). When excluding eyes that did not receive intraoperative optic capture (n=19; 32%) the MedAE was shown to be lower. Conclusion: Using modern IOL calculation formulas provided by the ESCRS calculator provides good refractive predictability and compares for most of the formulas to the results with SRK/T. Additionally the formulas seem to anticipate the postoperative refraction better for eyes that receive a posterior optic capture.

ophthalmology,surgery
Formula constant optimisation techniques including variation of keratometer or corneal refractive index and consideration for classical and modern IOL formulae

Achim Langenbucher,Nóra Szentmáry,Alan Cayless,Jascha Wendelstein,Peter Hoffmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282213

IF: 3.7

2023-02-26

PLoS ONE

Abstract:To investigate whether variation of the keratometer/corneal refractive index nK/nC improves the performance (prediction error PE) of classical and a modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula and further, to establish whether any trend error of PE for corneal radius R could be eliminated using formula constant and nK/nC optimisation. Based on 2 large datasets (1: N = 888 Hoya Vivinex aberration-correcting and 2: N = 822 Alcon SA60AT spherical lens) a classical formula constant optimisation has been performed for the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Castrop formulae, to minimise the root mean squared (rms) PE (situation A). In two further optimisations, the formula constants and the formula specific nK/nC value were optimised to minimise the rms PE (situation B) or rms PE and trend error of PE for R (situation C). Nonlinear iterative optimisation strategy was applied according to Levenberg-Marquardt. Optimising for rms PE and trend error (C) mainly improved the performance of the Holladay 1. The Haigis formula also showed a slight improvement compared to (A). The Hoffer Q formula shows no relevant trend error of PE for R. In contrast, the Holladay shows a positive and the Haigis (and the Castrop a slight) negative trend error of PE for R. The trend error could be fully eliminated by optimising formula constants and nK/nC in (B), but this was at the cost of overall performance in the case of the Holladay 1 formula. Classical IOL calculation concepts should be critically examined for potential improvement of formula performance by variation of the empirical nK/nC value defined in the formula. With additional degrees of freedom additional optimisation terms such as trend errors might be considered in new intelligent optimisation strategies.

multidisciplinary sciences
U.S. research policy. Med schools add labs despite budget crunch.

J. Kaiser

IF: 56.9

Science

Abstract:
Preliminary demonstration of a novel intraocular lens power calculation: the O formula

So Goto,Naoyuki Maeda,Kazuhiko Ohnuma,Tjundewo Lawu,Ryo Kawasaki,Shizuka Koh,Kohji Nishida,Toru Noda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000983

2022-11-04

Abstract:The accuracy of refractive outcomes after cataract surgery has been improving with the developments in surgical techniques, preoperative measurements, intraocular lenses (IOLs), and IOL power calculation formulas. Commonly used formulas for calculating IOL power are classified as vergence, artificial intelligence (AI), ray tracing, or a combination of these, and their accuracies in calculating IOL power are excellent. 1 Although IOL power calculation theoretically lies in the domain of optical science, no formula is perfect. Even in uncomplicated cataracts, approximately 5% of cases experience prediction errors in refraction greater than 1.0 diopter (D). 2–5

ophthalmology,surgery
[Optical benchtop evaluation of special intraocular lens optics]

Grzegorz Łabuz,Ramin Khoramnia,Tadas Naujokaitis,Gerd U Auffarth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-024-02064-y

Abstract:Intraocular lenses (IOL) featuring complex optical designs can pose a challenge in understanding their performance, which may hinder making an informed decision when selecting suitable lenses for patients. This underlines the importance of collecting optical quality data of IOLs and making them available. The deployment of benchtop systems for IOL testing offers not only insights into the design features of various IOL solutions but also provides a platform for objective comparisons of special optics designs, including information about their susceptibility to photic phenomena. Recent advances in IOL testing have improved the ability to predict functional effects on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity from objective optical quality metrics. This, for instance, can be used to study monofocal lenses and the impact of asphericity on vision and IOLs tolerance to misalignment. Monofocal-plus IOLs consistently show only a slight improvement in the depth of focus when tested on the optical bench and in clinical settings. Although the pupil dependence found in this technology may limit the advantages of monofocal-plus over standard monofocal technology to extend the range of vision, it is the key to reduce photic phenomena. Refractive and diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs can effectively enhance intermediate vision, with the latter offering a slightly broader depth of focus but potentially increasing the risk of dysphotopsia. However, the limitation of EDOF IOLs is that they often fail to deliver spectacle independence for reading, which can be overcome by trifocal technology. Still, the available trifocal IOLs differ in their location of intermediate and near foci and the susceptibility to produce glare effects. Therefore, the knowledge from optical benchtop testing of IOLs can support optimizing the IOL selection by aligning the patient's visual needs with the IOL's properties, setting the right expectations, and assessing the risk profile for the occurrence of photic phenomena, potentially leading to improved decision-making.
Non-diffractive intraocular lens with extended depth of focus optical power calculation

K.B. Pershin,N.F. Pashinova,A.Y. Tsygankov,E.A. Antonov,,,,,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25276/2410-1257-2024-1-11-15

2024-05-06

Abstract:Purpose. Retrospective analysis of the accuracy of 7 formulas for calculating the optical power of a non-diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) with extended depth of focus. Material and methods. The retrospective study included 48 patients (81 eyes) with AcrySof IQ Vivity EDOF IOL implantation. The IOL optical power range was +15.0 to +30.0 D, and the target refraction was –0.25 to 0.25 D. The mean age of the patients was 59.1±7.7 (40–84) years.The SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Olsen, and Kane formulas were retrospectively analyzed for effectiveness using appropriate constants. Each formula was optimized for the study group of patients to achieve an average refractive error as close to zero as possible. For each formula, the mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD), median absolute error (MedAE), maximum absolute error (MaxAE), and percentage of eyes within the error range of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 D were calculated. Results. The optimized constants were LF = 2.18, a0 = 1.39, a1 = 0.41, a2 = 0.13, personalized ACD = 5.74, ACD (Hoffer Q/Holladay 2) = 5.64/5.50, A-constant (SRK/T/Kane) = 119.2/119.3. The lowest MAE is determined for Kane, Barrett Universal II, and SRK/T formulas (p<0.05). The use of Haigis and Olsen formulas was characterized by a lower MAE compared to Holladay 2 and Hoffer Q formulas (p<0.05). With the exception of the Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas, all other formulas are shown to fall within the target refraction of ±2.00 D. With the Kane, Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas, 100% target refraction of ±1.00 D, 98‒99% target refraction of ±0.50 D, and greater than 80% target refraction of ±0.20 D were determined. Conclusion. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the performance of seven formulas for calculating the optical power of the Acrysof IQ Vivity EDOF non-diffractive intraocular lens. The best results were shown for the Kane, Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas. Key words:cataract, phacoemulsification, EDOF, Symfony, IOL optical power calculation, constant optimization
A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence

Wiktor Stopyra,David L. Cooke,Andrzej Grzybowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020498

IF: 3.9

2024-01-17

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Purpose: The proper selection of an intraocular lens power calculation formula is an essential aspect of cataract surgery. This study evaluated the accuracy of artificial intelligence-based formulas. Design: Systematic review. Methods: This review comprises articles evaluating the exactness of artificial intelligence-based formulas published from 2017 to July 2023. The papers were identified by a literature search of various databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Crossref, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SciELO) using the terms "IOL formulas", "FullMonte", "Ladas", "Hill-RBF", "PEARL-DGS", "Kane", "Karmona", "Hoffer QST", and "Nallasamy". In total, 25 peer-reviewed articles in English with the maximum sample and the largest number of compared formulas were examined. Results: The scores of the mean absolute error and percentage of patients within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to estimate the exactness of the formulas. In most studies the Kane formula obtained the smallest mean absolute error and the highest percentage of patients within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D. Second place was typically achieved by the PEARL DGS formula. The limitations of the studies were also discussed. Conclusions: Kane seems to be the most accurate artificial intelligence-based formula. PEARL DGS also gives very good results. Hoffer QST, Karmona, and Nallasamy are the newest, and need further evaluation.

medicine, general & internal
Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Bjørn Gjerdrum,Kjell Gunnar Gundersen,Per Olof Lundmark,Bente Monica Aakre

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S298007

2021-02-26

Abstract:Purpose: To compare the refractive predictability of ray tracing IOL calculations based on OCT data versus traditional IOL calculation formulas based on reflectometry in patients with a history of previous myopic laser vision correction (LVC). Patients and methods: This was a prospective interventional single-arm study of IOL calculations for cataract and refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients with a history of myopic LVC. Preoperative biometric data were collected using an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device (Haag-Streit Lenstar 900) and two optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Tomey Casia SS-1000 and Heidelberg Engineering Anterion). Traditional post LVC formulas (Barret True-K no-history and Haigis-L) with reflectometry data, and ray tracing IOL calculation software (OKULIX, Panopsis GmbH, Mainz, Germany) with OCT data were used to calculate IOL power. Follow-up examination was 2 to 3 months after surgery. The main outcome measure, refractive prediction error (RPE), was calculated as the achieved postoperative refraction minus the predicted refraction. Results: We found that the best ray tracing combination (Anterion-OKULIX) resulted in an arithmetic prediction error statistically significantly lower than that achieved with the best formula calculation (Barret True-K no-history) (-0.13 D and -0.32 D, respectively, adjusted p = 0.01), while the Barret TK NH had the lowest SD. The absolute prediction error was 0.26 D and 0.35 D for Anterion-OKULIX and Barret TK NH, respectively, but this was not statistically significantly different. The Anterion-OKULIX calculation also had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, compared to both formulas and within ±0.50 and ±0.75 compared to the Haigis-L (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Ray tracing calculation based on OCT data from the Anterion device can yield similar or better results than traditional post LVC formulas. Ray tracing calculations are based on individual measurements and do not rely on the ocular history of the patient and are therefore applicable for any patient, also without previous refractive surgery.
Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures

Liangpin Li,Liyun Yuan,Kun Yang,Yanan Wu,Xia Hua,Yan Wang,Xiaoyong Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03164-0

2023-10-16

Abstract:Background: As the two most prevalent refractive surgeries in China, there is a substantial number of patients who have undergone Femtosecond Laser-assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures. However, there is still limited knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for these patients with a history of FS-LASIK or SMILE. Methods: A total of 100 eyes from 50 postoperative refractive surgery patients were included in this prospective cohort study, with 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone FS-LASIK and 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone SMILE. We utilized a theoretical surgical model to simulate the IOL implantation process in postoperative FS-LASIK and SMILE patients. Subsequently, we performed comprehensive biological measurements both before and after the surgeries, encompassing demographic information, corneal biometric parameters, and axial length. Various formulas, including the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, as a baseline, were employed to calculate IOL power for the patients. Results: The Barrett True K (BTK) formula, demonstrated an mean absolute error (AE) within 0.5 D for both FS-LASIK and SMILE groups (0.28 ± 0.25 D and 0.36 ± 0.24 D, respectively). Notably, the FS-LASIK group showed 82% of results differing by less than 0.25 D compared to preoperative BUII results. The Barrett True K No History (BTKNH) formula, which also incorporates measured posterior corneal curvature, performed similarly to BTK in both groups. Additionally, the Masket formula, relying on refractive changes based on empirical experience, displayed promising potential for IOL calculations in SMILE patients compared with BTK (p = 0.411). Conclusion: The study reveals the accuracy and stability of the BTK and BTKNH formulas for IOL power calculations in myopic FS-LASIK/SMILE patients. Moreover, the Masket formula shows encouraging results in SMILE patients. These findings contribute to enhancing the predictability and success of IOL power calculations in patients with a history of refractive surgery, providing valuable insights for clinical practice. Further research and larger sample sizes are warranted to validate and optimize the identified formulas for better patient outcomes.

Glycolytic overload and the genesis of breast cancer.

IOL calculation in standard situation

IOL calculation in complex cases

Error Sources and Correction of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Corneal Refractive Surgery

Pearls and pitfalls in IOL power calculation

Theoretical approach to intraocular lens calculation using Gaussian optics

IOL Formula Constants: Strategies for Optimization and Defining Standards for Presenting Data

Prediction accuracy of IOL calculation formulas using the ASCRS online calculator for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

Comparative Clinical Accuracy Analysis of the Newly Developed ZZ IOL and Four Existing IOL Formulas for Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Intraocular Lens Optic Power Calculation on “Short” Eyes. A Review

IOL Calculation using the ESCRS Online Calculator in Pediatric Eyes Undergoing Lens Extraction

Formula constant optimisation techniques including variation of keratometer or corneal refractive index and consideration for classical and modern IOL formulae

U.S. research policy. Med schools add labs despite budget crunch.

Preliminary demonstration of a novel intraocular lens power calculation: the O formula

[Optical benchtop evaluation of special intraocular lens optics]

Non-diffractive intraocular lens with extended depth of focus optical power calculation

A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures