Purpose To compare the accuracy of a newly developed intraocular lens (IOL) power formula (VRF-G) with twelve existing formulas (Barret Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, Næeser 2, PEARL-DGS, SRK/T, T2 and VRF). Methods Retrospective case series including 828 patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with the implantation of a single IOL model (SN60WF). Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the axial length (short ≤22.0mm; medium >22.0mm to <26.0mm; long ≥26.0mm). Main outcomes included mean prediction error (ME) mean (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE), in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D. Results Formulas absolute errors were statistically different among them (p<0.001), with Kane having the lowest MAE of all formulas, followed by EVO 2.0 and VRF-G, which had the lowest MedAE. The Kane formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25D (47.0%) and ±1.00D (97.7%) and the VRF-G formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (79.5%). For all AL subgroups, Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas had the most accurate performances (lowest MAE). Conclusion New generation formulas may help us in achieving better refractive results, lowering the variance in accuracy in extreme eyes – Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas are promising candidates to fulfil that goal.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose. To determine the significance of any association between intersessional changes in ocular residual astigmatism (RA) and astigmatism at corneal front (FSA) and back (BSA) surfaces following uneventful routine phacoemulsification. Methods. Astigmatism was evaluated by autorefractometry and subjective refraction and at both the corneal surfaces with Orbscan II™ (Bausch & Lomb) over central 3 mm and 5 mm optical zones at 1, 2, and 3 months after routine phacoemulsification in 103 patients implanted with monofocal nontoric intraocular lenses (IOLs, one eye/patient). Data were subjected to vector analysis to determine the actual change (Δ) in astigmatism (power and axis) for the refractive and Orbscan II findings. Results. The number of cases that attended where ΔRA was ≥0.50 DC between 1 and 2 months was 52 by autorefractometry and 36 by subjective refraction and between 2 and 3 months was 24 by autorefractometry and 19 by subjective refraction. Vector analysis revealed significant correlations between ΔFSA and ΔRA for data obtained by autorefractometry but not by subjective refraction. At all times, ΔBSA was greater than ΔFSA (p<0.01). Key findings for ΔBSA values over the central 3 mm zone were between (A) the sine of the axis of ΔRA (y) and sine of the axis of ΔBSA (x) for the data obtained by autorefractometry (between 1 and 2 months, y = 0.749 − 0.303x, r = 0.299, n = 52, p=0.031) and subjective refraction (between 2 and 3 months, y = 0.6614 − 0.4755x, r = 0.474, n = 19, p=0.040) and (B) ΔRA (y) and ΔBSA (x) powers between 2 and 3 months postoperatively for the data obtained by autorefractometry (ΔRA = 0.118 ΔBSA + 0.681 r = 0.467, n = 24, p=0.021) and subjective refraction (ΔRA = 0.072 ΔBSA + 0.545 r = 0.510, n = 19, p=0.026). Conclusion. Changes in the ocular residual refractive astigmatic error after implanting a monofocal nontoric IOL are associated with changes in astigmatism at the back surface of the cornea within the central optical zone.