Comparing the Accuracy of the Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, and Ladas Super Formula Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
Majid Moshirfar,Christian A Sulit,Alex H Brown,Chase Irwin,Yasmyne C Ronquillo,Phillip C Hoopes,Alex Brown
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S417865
2023-09-08
Clinical Ophthalmology
Abstract:Majid Moshirfar, 1– 3, &ast Christian A Sulit, 4, &ast Alex H Brown, 4, &ast Chase Irwin, 4, 5 Yasmyne C Ronquillo, 1, &ast Phillip C Hoopes 1, &ast 1 Hoopes Vision Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA; 2 John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 3 Utah Lions Eye Bank, Murray, UT, USA; 4 University of Arizona College of Medicine - Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 5 Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Phoenix, AZ, USA &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Majid Moshirfar, Hoopes Vision Research Center, 11820 S. State St. &num200, Draper, UT, 84020, USA, Tel +1 801-568-0200, Fax +1 801-563-0200, Email Purpose: To assess the accuracy of five new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) Formula, Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBF), Kane Formula, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF). Patients and Methods: This is a retrospective single-surgeon study from a refractive clinic and clinical research center in Draper, UT, USA. The primary outcome measures were mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE). Secondary outcome measures were the standard deviation (SD) of each formula's refractive prediction errors (RPE) and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50D. Refractive predictions were compared to the postoperative spherical equivalent to determine the RPE for each formula. RPEs were optimized, and MAE, MedAE, SD of the AME, and percent of eyes achieving RPEs within the specified ranges of ± 0.125 D, ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.0 D were calculated. Subgroup analysis between different axial lengths was attempted but yielded insufficient statistical power to draw meaningful conclusions. Results: A total of 103 eyes of 103 patients were included in our study after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to 606 eyes from 2019 to 2021. Formulas ranked in ascending order by MAE were Kane, EVO, BUII, Hill-RBF, and LSF. The ascending rankings of MedAE were Kane, BUII, Hill-RBF, EVO, Ladas. Kane had a significantly lower MAE than Hill-RBF (p< 0.001). EVO had the lowest SD of AMEs and the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D. According to heteroscedastic testing, EVO also had a statistically significant lower SD than Hill-RBF. Conclusion: Kane was the most accurate formula in terms of MAE and MedAE. EVO and BUII achieved marginally higher MAEs than Kane, suggesting these three formulas are comparable in performance. With the exception EVO and Hill-RBF, the heteroscedastic test yielded no significant differences in SD between the formulas. Although there were multiple statistically significant differences between the formulas in terms of MAE, MedAE, and SD, these differences may not be appreciable clinically. Lastly, there were no statistically significant differences in the percent of eyes with RPEs within ± 0.50 D, suggesting similar clinical performance between formulas. Keywords: cataract surgery, refractive surgery, IOL power formulas, new generation IOL formulas, refractive lens exchange, clear lens extraction, RLE, CLE Estimates indicate that cataracts are the leading cause of remediable blindness globally. 1 The current treatment for a cataract involves removing the clouded lens and replacing it with an artificial intraocular lens (IOL). Determining the proper IOL power to achieve an optimal refractive outcome is complex and challenging. A study by Hill showed that less than 1% of surgeons attained a ±0.50 D accuracy in 92% of their cases or better and that most surgeons perform within ±0.50 D accuracy in 78% of their cases. 2 Significant improvement is still needed to achieve better outcomes for patients. Optical biometry measurements and IOL power calculation formulas are used by surgeons to assist in accurately predicting postoperative refractive outcomes. Since the first theoretical IOL power calculation formula was created by Fedorov et al in 1967, many newer generation formulas have been developed. 3 These formulas have been categorized based on their derivation, which includes historical/refraction-based, regression, vergence, ray tracing, and artificial intelligence (AI). 4 Previous studies have compared different IOL formulas to determine which formula best predicts actual postoperative refractive results. Despite many studies addressing this topic, there is still considerable debate about the best formula. A study by Melles et al in 2018 indicated that Barrett Universal II (BUII) was the most a -Abstract Truncated-