A comparative analysis of 12 intraocular lens power formulas

Pereira, Austin; Popović, Marko; Ahmed, Yusuf; Lloyd, John C.; El‐Defrawy, Sherif; Gorfinkel, John; Schlenker, Matthew B.

doi:10.1007/s10792-021-01966-z

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While only a few independent studies have evaluated the use of Kane's formula, consistent with our results, these independent studies have reported excellent results. 9,20,34 The Barrett Universal II formula was the third formula used in this study, showing an MAE lower than 0.3 D. The use of this formula is already widespread and has been incorporated into several biometers; however, the formula has not yet been disclosed. 9,[35][36][37] In accordance with our results, Olsen et al reported that the success of power adjustment based on the refractive outcome of the first operated eye was formula-dependent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9,20,34 The Barrett Universal II formula was the third formula used in this study, showing an MAE lower than 0.3 D. The use of this formula is already widespread and has been incorporated into several biometers; however, the formula has not yet been disclosed. 9,[35][36][37] In accordance with our results, Olsen et al reported that the success of power adjustment based on the refractive outcome of the first operated eye was formula-dependent. 25 The Kane formula is more reliable for formula selection of the second eye, whereas the success of the SRK/T formula in the first eye does not necessarily translate to its efficacy in the second eye.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third‐generation formulae Hoffer Q, 2–4 Holladay, 5 SRK/T, 6,7 and Haigis 8 are incorporated into all biometers and are therefore widely used. Although they provide good predictions, the newer formulae present more precise predictions 9–13 . These newer formulae, for example, the Barrett Universal II formula 14 (hereafter referred to as Barrett formula) and Kane formula, 15 focus on a different approach than the regression formulae (thick lens theory and artificial intelligence, respectively).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although they provide good predictions, the newer formulae present more precise predictions. [9][10][11][12][13] These newer formulae, for example, the Barrett Universal II formula 14 (hereafter referred to as Barrett formula) and Kane formula, 15 focus on a different approach than the regression formulae (thick lens theory and artificial intelligence, respectively). In formulae comparison studies, newer-generation formulae outperform the most commonly used thirdgeneration formulae.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Best fit formula approach in delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery

Röggla

Langenbucher

Leydolt

et al. 2023

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe evaluated whether the best‐fit intraocular lens (IOL) power formula for the first operated eye (BF1) was also the most accurate formula for the second eye.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 152 patients who underwent uncomplicated delayed bilateral cataract surgery with a minimum delay of 3 weeks using only one 1‐piece IOL (HOYA, Vivinex) at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Seven different formulae (Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T) were investigated to test the formula selection approach with regard to the calculated mean and median absolute prediction errors (MAE/MedAE).ResultsThe mean intraindividual difference in axial length was 0.2 mm (±0.3 mm). BF1 coincided with the best‐fit formula for the second eye (BF2) in 56% of patients (p < 0.05). Using BF1 for the second eye led to a lower MedAE (0.22 dioptre, D) than using a formula at random (0.33 D) and was less accurate than using the best‐fit formula for each eye separately (0.1 D). The MedAEs of all formulae were generally low, ranging from 0.28 to 0.35 D.ConclusionUsing BF1 for the second eye led to a lower MedAE than the random selection of a formula. Therefore, BF1 can be used for the second eye if the surgeon is unsure of the choice of formula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Best fit formula approach in delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery

Röggla

Langenbucher

Leydolt

et al. 2023

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[25][26][27][28] Compared with new formulas, Kane could more accurately predict the actual postoperative refraction. 29,30 The published researches suggest that the formulas of BU II 15,16,26,31,32 , Kane 32,33 and Hill RBF 2.0 31,34 exhibit good performance when AL ≥ 26.0 mm. It is not surprising that differences in research results may be related to the selection of patients with different anterior ocular conditions, measurement instruments, and implanted IOL types.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Capsular Tension Ring Implantation on Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Selection for Long Axial Myopia

Liang,

Yan,

Xie

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The study investigated the effect of capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation on postoperative refractive stability and accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for axial length (AL) ≥ 27.0 mm patients. Methods Prospective case series. The eyes of patients underwent phacoemulsification extraction combined with IOL implantation were classified as CTR implantation (A-CTR) and without CTR implantation (B-CON) groups. Refractive outcome and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were recorded at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months post-operation. Prediction refractive error (PE) and absolute refractive error (AE) of each formula were calculated. Results Comparison of refraction at different postoperative times of the CTR group showed no statistical difference (all P > .05). The ACD in the A-CTR group gradually deepened, and that in the B-CON group gradually shallowed (all P > .05). The formulas’ AE showed statistically significant differences in CTR and CON groups (P < .001). The PE of Hill-RBF 2.0 and EVO formulas in the A-CTR group were more hyperopic than that in the B-CON group (all P > .05), the other five formulas were more myopic in A-CTR group than that in the B-CON group (all P > .05). Conclusion Patients with CTR implantation tended to have stable refraction at 1 week post-surgery and 1 month for those without it. CTR had no effect on the selection of formulas. Additionally, it is found that Kane and EVO formulas were more accurate for patients with AL ≥ 27.0 mm.

show abstract

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review

Stopyra,

Langenbucher,

Grzybowski

2023

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated. Methods This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms “IOL formulas,” “Barrett Universal II,” “Kane,” “Hill-RBF,” “Olsen,” “PEARL-DGS,” “EVO,” “Haigis,” “SRK/T,” and “Hoffer Q.” Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered. Results Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes. Conclusions The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise.

show abstract

A comparative analysis of 12 intraocular lens power formulas

Cited by 20 publications

References 25 publications

Best fit formula approach in delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery

Best fit formula approach in delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery

Effect of Capsular Tension Ring Implantation on Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula Selection for Long Axial Myopia

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About