Prospective comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas in phacovitrectomy: a pilot study in a real-world clinical practice

Tatsuhiko Sato,Emiko Iimori,Ken Hayashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05771-x

2022-07-25

Abstract:To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations among IOL formulas after phacovitrectomy.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Phacovitrectomy

Yuichiro Tanaka,Kazutaka Kamiya,Akihito Igarahi,Nobuyuki Shoji,Hiroshi Tsuchiya,Shinya Takahashi,Eri Ishikawa,Tadahiko Kozawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-024-00971-6

2024-06-15

Ophthalmology and Therapy

Abstract:The aim of this study was to evaluate the refractive error in patients undergoing combined phacovitrectomy with and without gas tamponade.

ophthalmology
Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in combined phacovitrectomy

Chanon Thanitcul,Abdelhalim A. Awidi,John G. Ladas,Aazim A. Siddiqui,Christina R. Prescott,Kraig S. Bower,Albert S. Jun,Yassine Daoud,Divya Srikumaran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03019-7

IF: 2.029

2024-02-20

International Ophthalmology

Abstract:To assess the refractive accuracy of eight intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes that underwent combined phacovitrectomy.

ophthalmology
Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade

Yu-Jin Choi,Donghyun Jee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2023.0012

Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy. Methods: This retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm). Results: The ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas. Conclusions: Our study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.
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.
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.
Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack

Na Hyun Kim,Yujin Gim,Kyu-Ryong Choi,Wool Suh,Roo Min Jun,Kyung Eun Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5

2023-11-24

Abstract:Background: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. Results: In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group. Conclusions: Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group.
Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas based on swept-source OCT biometer in cataract patients with phakic intraocular lens

Zongsheng Zeng,Meiyi Zhu,Guangbin Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03605-4

2024-08-05

Abstract:Purpose: To research the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas and investigate the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOLMaster 700) in patients with posterior chamber phakic IOL (PC-pIOL). Methods: Retrospective case series. The IOLMaster 700 biometer was used to measure axial length (AL) and anterior segment parameters. The traditional formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Haigis) with or without Wang-Koch (WK) AL adjustment, and new-generation formulas (Barret Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] v2.0, Kane, Pearl-DGS) were utilized in IOL power calculation. Results: This study enrolled 24 eyes of 24 patients undergoing combined PC-pIOL removal and cataract surgery at Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China. The median absolute prediction error in ascending order was EVO 2.0 (0.33), Kane (0.35), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.42), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.44), Haigis-WKC1 (0.46), Pearl-DGS (0.47), BUII (0.58), Haigis (0.75), SRK/T (0.79), and Holladay 1 (1.32). The root-mean-square absolute error in ascending order was Haigis-WKC1 (0.591), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.622), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.623), EVO (0.673), Kane (0.678), Pearl-DGS (0.753), BUII (0.863), Haigis (1.061), SRK/T (1.188), and Holladay 1 (1.513). A detailed analysis of ACD and LT measurement error revealed negligible impact on refractive outcomes in BUII and EVO 2.0 when these parameters were incorporated or omitted in the formula calculation. Conclusion: The Kane, EVO 2.0, and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment displayed high prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the ACD and LT measurement error does not exert a significant influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes implanted with PC-pIOL.
A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions

Wenhan Lu,Yu Hou,Hongfang Yang,Xinghuai Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276286

IF: 3.7

2022-10-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: For primary angle-closure and angle-closure glaucoma, the fact that refractive error sometimes deviates from predictions after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is familiar to cataract surgeons. Since controversy remains in the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas, both traditional and network meta-analysis on formula accuracy were conducted in patients with primary angle-closure conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted through Aug 2022, focusing on studies on intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure (PAC) and primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). A systemic review and network meta-analysis was performed. Quality of studies were assessed. Primary outcomes were the mean absolute errors (MAE) and the percentages of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopiters (D) or ±1.00 D (% ±0.50/1.00 D) by different formulas. Results: Six retrospective studies involving 419 eyes and 8 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Kane, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay I, RBF 3.0 and LSF) were included. SRK/T was used as a reference as it had been investigated in all the studies included. Direct comparison showed that none of the involved formula outperformed or was defeated by SRK/T significantly in terms of either MAE or % ±0.50/1.00 D (all P>0.05). Network comparison and ranking possibilities disclosed BUII, Kane, RBF 3.0 with statistically insignificant advantage. No significant publication bias was detected by network funnel plot. Conclusions: No absolute advantage was disclosed among the formulas involved in this study for PAC/PACG eyes. Further carefully designed studies are warranted to evaluate IOL calculation formulae in this target population. Trail registration: Registration: PROSEPRO ID: CRD42022326541.
The effect of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 IOL power formulas

Jialin Xu,Lu Zhang,Er Mo,Kaiyi Zhu,Yitong Zhu,Ke Feng,Zunting Wu,Yangran Zheng,Fang Huang,Xianhui Gong,Jin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03395-9

IF: 2.086

2024-03-21

BMC Ophthalmology

Abstract:This study evaluates the impact of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 newer intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in cataract surgery. The aim is to assess how these formulas perform across different corneal curvature ranges, thereby guiding more precise IOL selection.

ophthalmology
Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Patients Undergoing Combined Phakic Intraocular Lens Removal and Cataract Surgery

Jiaqing Zhang,Zhaoxia Xia,Xiaotong Han,Zhenzhen Liu,Haowen Lin,Xiaozhang Qiu,Miao Zhang,Xiaoting Ruan,Xiaoyun Chen,Guangming Jin,Xiaoxun Gu,Xuhua Tan,Lixia Luo,Yizhi Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.09.035

Abstract:Purpose: To investigate the prediction accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas, and the impact of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measurement errors on IOL power calculation in patients undergoing combined phakic IOL (PIOL) removal and cataract surgery. Design: Retrospective, consecutive case series study. Methods: Thirty-six PIOL implanted eyes (12 anterior chamber PIOLs and 24 posterior chamber PIOLs [PC-PIOL]) undergoing cataract surgery were included. The prediction accuracy of new formulas (Barrett universal II, Emmetropia verifying optical, Kane, and Ladas super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) with or without Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment was evaluated. The influence of ACD and LT measurement errors of IOLMaster 700 on refractive outcomes was also investigated. Results: The Kane and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment had no significant systematic prediction error and displayed a smaller median absolute error, whereas the other formulas showed significant hyperopia shift (P < .05) and relatively lower prediction accuracy. The accuracy rate of IOLMaster 700 in measuring the ACD and LT was 100% in eyes with anterior chamber PIOL implantation, and 37.50% in the PC-PIOL subgroup. No significant difference was observed in refractive outcomes of formulas using correct and wrong parameters in the PC-PIOL subgroup (P > .05). Conclusions: The Kane and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment exhibited relatively higher prediction accuracy in patients who underwent combined PIOL removal and cataract surgery. The IOLMaster 700 displayed low accuracy in ACD and LT measurements for PC-PIOL implanted eyes, but showed negligible impact on IOL prediction accuracy.
Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

Kate Gettinger,Sachiko Masui,Miki Omoto,Hidemasa Torii,Erisa Yotsukura,Yasuyo Nishi,Masahiko Ayaki,Ken Hayashi,Kazuno Negishi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-78266-w

IF: 4.6

2024-11-05

Scientific Reports

Abstract:This retrospective study compared postoperative prediction errors of recent formulas using standard- or total keratometry (K or TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic LASIK patients. It included 56 eyes of 56 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery, with at least 1-month follow-up at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo or Hayashi Eye Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. Prediction errors, absolute errors, and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated using nine formulas: Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K TK, Haigis-L, Haigis TK, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, Hoffer QST PK, EVO K, and EVO PK. Statistical comparisons utilized Friedman test, Conover's all-pairs post-hoc, Cochran's Q, and McNemar post-hoc testing. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) was compared with heteroscedastic testing. Barrett True-K TK had the lowest median predicted refractive error (-0.01). EVO PK had the smallest median absolute error (0.20). EVO PK had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D of the predicted value (58.9%), significantly better than Haigis-L ( p = 0.047). EVO PK had the lowest mean RMSE value (0.499). The EVO PK formula yielded the most accurate IOL power calculation in post-myopic LASIK eyes, with TK/PK values enhancing accuracy.

multidisciplinary sciences
[Clinical Study of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Cornea Refractive Surgery].

Xu Chen,Ying-hong Ji,Yong-xiang Jiang,Yi Luo,Chun-hui Jiang,Yi Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2010.06.010

2010-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the results of cataract surgery in myopia patients after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and to compare the predictability of various methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.METHOD:Seventeen cases (24 eyes) who had LASIK for myopia were divided into two group by with or without history of corneal power data. Corneal power was obtained by autokeratometry, corneal topography, Pentacam and IOL Master. The IOL power was calculated with the clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis formula, Feiz-Mannis method and other methods. Postoperative final refraction and the deviation of the final spherical equivalent (SEQ) from the refractive target were measured 3 month after the surgery. Two sample t-test, linear correlation and regression analysis, paired t-test and Bland-Altman method of agreement were used to analyze these data.RESULTS:In the group with history data, the mean corneal power was (43.28 ± 1.21) D and the mean SEQ was (-15.33 ± 4.36) D before the LASIK surgery. In the group without history data, the mean SEQ was (-10.11 ± 3.12) D. Before cataract surgery, the mean corneal power was (36.96 ± 2.07) D and (36.85 ± 1.40) D in these two groups. The mean arithmetic refractive prediction error after cataract surgery was (-0.66 ± 1.27) D and (-0.47 ± 0.82) D in these two groups, respectively. Data calculated by using Hamed-Wang-Koch method, Masket Formula, Koch/Maloney method, Shammar method and Pentacam ERK method were lower than the emmetropic IOL power. Data calculated by using Feiz-Mannis Formula, Latkany Method, Savini method, Armberri Double K method were overestimated. The mean arithmetic errors of clinic history method, Corneal Passby Method and Haigis-L Formula were not significantly different from the predict refraction (P = 0.364, 0.318 and 0.069; t = 0.956, -1.057 and -1.911, respectively). There was strong correlation between the value calculated by using Feiz-Mannis Method or Haigis-L Formula and the true power (r = 0.921, 0.915; P = 0.000 and 0.000, respectively). But none of the values calculated by these method could fully agree with the true value.CONCLUSIONS:IOL power should be calculated accurately to avoid undercorrection. We recommend the combination of clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis Method, Corneal Passby Method and Haigis-L Formula for the calculation of IOL power.
Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery

Naren Shetty,Priyanka Sathe,Aishwarya,Mathew Francis,Rohit Shetty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_2758_23

2024-08-01

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the prediction accuracy of various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas on American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator and Barrett True-K total keratometry (TK) in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. Methods: This retrospective study included eyes with history of myopic laser refractive surgery, which have undergone clear or cataractous lens extraction by phacoemulsification followed by IOL implantation. Those who underwent uneventful crystalline lens extraction were included. Eyes with any complication of refractive surgery or those with eventful lens extraction procedure and those who were lost to follow-up were excluded. Formulas compared were Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS average power, ASCRS maximum power on the ASCRS post-refractive calculator and the IOLMaster 700 Barrett True-K TK. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between the implanted IOL power and the predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS online calculator. Results: Forty post-myopic laser-refractive surgery eyes of 26 patients were included. Friedman's test revealed that Shammas formula, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS maximum power were significantly different from all other formulas (P < 0.00001 for each). Median absolute error (MedAE) was the least for Shammas and Barrett True-K TK formulas (0.28 [0.14, 0.36] and 0.28 [0.21, 0.39], respectively) and the highest for Wang-Koch-Maloney (1.29 [0.97, 1.61]). Shammas formula had the least variance (0.14), while Wang-Koch-Maloney formula had the maximum variance (2.66). Conclusion: In post-myopic laser refractive surgery eyes, Shammas formula and Barrett True-K TK no-history formula on ASCRS calculator are more accurate in predicting IOL powers.
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.
Intraocular lens power calculations after myopic laser refractive surgery: a comparison of methods in 173 eyes

Martin McCarthy,Gregory M Gavanski,Katherine E Paton,Simon P Holland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.048

IF: 14.277

Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate and compare published methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after myopic laser refractive surgery in a large, multi-surgeon study. Design: Retrospective case series. Participants: A total of 173 eyes of 117 patients who had uneventful LASIK (89) or photorefractive keratectomy (84) for myopia and subsequent cataract surgery. Methods: Data were collected from primary sources in patient charts. The Clinical History Method (vertex corrected to the corneal plane), the Aramberri Double-K, the Latkany Flat-K, the Feiz and Mannis, the R-Factor, the Corneal Bypass, the Masket (2006), the Haigis-L, and the Shammas.cd postrefractive adjustment methods were evaluated in conjunction with third- and fourth-generation optical vergence formulas, as appropriate. Intraocular lens power required for emmetropia was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction and implanted IOL power, and then formula accuracy was compared. Main outcome measures: Prediction error arithmetic mean ± standard deviation (SD), range (minimum and maximum), and percent within 0 to -1.0 diopters (D), ±0.5 D, ±1.0 D, and ±2.0 D relative to target refraction. Results: The top 5 corneal power adjustment techniques and formula combinations in terms of mean prediction errors, standard deviations, and minimizing hyperopic "refractive surprises" were the Masket with the Hoffer Q formula, the Shammas.cd with the Shammas-PL formula, the Haigis-L, the Clinical History Method with the Hoffer Q, and the Latkany Flat-K with the SRK/T with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of -0.18±0.87 D, -0.10±1.02 D, -0.26±1.13 D, -0.27±1.04 D, and -0.37±0.91 D, respectively. Conclusions: By using these methods, 70% to 85% of eyes could achieve visual outcomes within 1.0 D of target refraction. The Shammas and the Haigis-L methods have the advantage of not requiring potentially inaccurate historical information.
Choice of intraocular lens calculation formula for cataract patients with prior pars plana vitrectomy

Jiaqing Zhang,Xiaotong Han,Xiaoyun Chen,Zhenzhen Liu,Yu Zhang,Xiaozhang Qiu,Xuhua Tan,Lixia Luo,Yizhi Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001253

2023-07-13

Abstract:Abstract Purpose: To determine the optimal intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula for vitrectomized eyes with diverse surgical and biometric characteristics. Setting: Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, China. Design: Retrospective consecutive case-series study. Methods: This study included 974 vitrectomized eyes (974 patients) scheduled for phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. Eleven formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II(BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function (RBF), Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay1, and SRK/T. Risk factors for prediction error (PE) exceeding 1D were determined using multiple logistic regression. Subgroup analyses were performed based on surgical history and biometric parameters. Results: The risk of hyperopic PE (>1D) was higher in patients with silicone oil tamponade (odds ratio [OR], 1.82) and longer axial length (AL) (OR, 1.55), while patients with previous scleral buckling (OR, 2.43) or ciliary sulcus IOL implantation (OR, 6.65) were more susceptible to myopic PE (<-1D). The Kane formula had the highest overall prediction accuracy, and also the best in silicone oil-filled eyes and the flat cornea subgroup. The BUII and RBF displayed the optimal performance in eyes with previous scleral buckle and steep cornea, respectively. In eyes with an AL ≥ 26mm, the Holladay1 with the nonlinear version of the Wang-Koch AL adjustment (Holladay1-WKn) showed the lowest absolute PE and highest percentage within ± 1.0D of PE. Conclusions: The Kane achieved the highest overall prediction accuracy in vitrectomized eyes. The optimal formula for eyes with previous scleral buckle, steep cornea, or long AL was BUII, RBF, and Holladay1-WKn, respectively.

ophthalmology,surgery
Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Following Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: New Options Using a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera

Kyuyeon Cho,Dong Hui Lim,Chan Min Yang,Eui Sang Chung,Tae Young Chung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2018.0008

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate and compare published methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following myopic laser refractive surgery. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 69 patients (69 eyes) who had undergone myopic laser refractive surgery previously and subsequently underwent cataract surgery at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea from January 2010 to June 2016. None of the patients had pre-refractive surgery biometric data available. The Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power (TCRP) 3 and 4 mm (SRK-T and Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power, and Scheimpflug true refractive power (TRP) 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm (SRK-T and Haigis) methods were employed. IOL power required for target refraction was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction, and implanted IOL power and formula accuracy were subsequently compared among calculation methods. Results: Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power 4 mm (Haigis), and Scheimpflug TRP 4 mm (Haigis) formulae showed high predictability, with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of -0.25 ± 0.59, -0.05 ± 1.19, 0.00 ± 0.88, -0.26 ± 1.17, 0.00 ± 1.09, -0.71 ± 1.20, and 0.03 ± 1.25 diopters, respectively. Conclusions: Visual outcomes within 1.0 diopter of target refraction were achieved in 85% of eyes using the calculation methods listed above. Haigis-L, Barrett True-K (no history), and Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis) and TRP 4 mm (Haigis) methods showed comparably low prediction errors, despite the absence of historical patient information.
Comparison of accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation methods using artificial intelligence

Gabor Nemeth,Adam Kemeny-Beke,Laszlo Modis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1120672121994720

2021-02-17

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract:Purpose: To assess the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on three methods using artificial intelligence (AI) and one formula using no AI. Methods: During cataract surgery on 114 eyes, one type of IOL was implanted, calculated with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method. The theoretical postoperative refractions were calculated using the Kane and the Pearl-DGS methods and a vergence based formula (Barrett Universal II, BUII). The differences between the manifest and objective postoperative refractions and the predicted refractions were calculated. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D prediction error (PE), the mean, and the median absolute errors (MAE and MedAE) were also determined. Results: The mean age of the patients was 69.48 years; the axial length was between 21.19 and 25.39 mm. The number of eyes within ±0.5/±1.0 D PE was 96/108 (84.21%/94.73%) using the Hill-RBF 2.0 method, 92/107 (80.70%/93.85%) with the Kane method, 91/107 (79.82%/93.85%) with the Pearl-DGS method, and 91/106 (79.82%/92.98%) with the BUII formula, using subjective refraction. With objective refractometric data, PEs were within ±0.5 D in 88 (77.19%), 83 (72.80%), 82 (71.92%), and 80 (70.17%) cases (Hill-RBF, Kane, Pearl-DGS, BUII, respectively). MAE and MedAE were also best with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method (0.3 D; 0.18 D). Conclusion: Better accuracy of PE might be obtained by the Hill-RBF 2.0 method compared with BUII. The Kane and Pearl-DGS methods showed similar accuracy when compared with BUII.

ophthalmology
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
Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy

Naren Shetty,Priyanka Sathe,Aishwarya,Mathew Francis,Rohit Shetty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_3417_22

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction of the formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK) for myopia. Methods: This retrospective study included 25 eyes of 18 patients whose status was post-RK for treatment of myopia, which had undergone cataract extraction with IOL implantation. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between implanted IOL power and predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. The formulas compared were Humphrey Atlas method, IOLMaster/Lenstar method, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS Average power, and ASCRS Maximum power on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. Results: Median absolute errors were the least for Barrett True-K and ASCRS Maximum power, that is, 0.56 (0.25, 1.04) and 0.56 (0.25, 1.06) D, respectively, and that of Atlas method was 1.60 (0.85, 2.28) D. Median arithmetic errors were positive for Atlas, Barrett True-K, ASCRS Average (0.86 [-0.17, 1.61], 0.14 [-0.22 to 0.54], and 0.23 [-0.054, 0.76] D, respectively) and negative for IOLMaster/Lenstar method and ASCRS Maximum power (-0.02 [-0.46 to 0.38] and - 0.48 [-1.06 to - 0.22] D, respectively). Multiple comparison analysis of Friedman's test revealed that Atlas formula was significantly different from IOLMaster/Lenstar, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS Maximum power; ASCRS Maximum power was significantly different from all others (P < 0.00001). Conclusion: In post-RK eyes, Barrett True-K no-history formula and ASCRS Maximum power given by the ASCRS calculator were more accurate than other available formulas, with ASCRS Maximum leading to more myopic outcomes when compared to others.

Prospective comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas in phacovitrectomy: a pilot study in a real-world clinical practice

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Phacovitrectomy

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas in combined phacovitrectomy

Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade

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

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

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

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas based on swept-source OCT biometer in cataract patients with phakic intraocular lens

A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions

The effect of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 IOL power formulas

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Patients Undergoing Combined Phakic Intraocular Lens Removal and Cataract Surgery

Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

[Clinical Study of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Cornea Refractive Surgery].

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery

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

Intraocular lens power calculations after myopic laser refractive surgery: a comparison of methods in 173 eyes

Choice of intraocular lens calculation formula for cataract patients with prior pars plana vitrectomy

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Following Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: New Options Using a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera

Comparison of accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation methods using artificial intelligence

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

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy