Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value

Abstract

The preliminary results of this study showed that the H2 formula performed well even without the LT value. It was comparable to the Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas.

Meta‐analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table ) . The sample size ranged from 15–608 eyes.…”

“…In total, there are 1161 eyes are enrolled from the 10 included studies (characteristics shown in Table 1). [12][13][14][15]18,19,[24][25][26][27] The sample size ranged from 15-608 eyes. All of the trials utilized IOL master for AL measurement.…”

“…10 Although some of the early studies considered Holladay 2 as one of the most precise IOL formulas, 10,11 the majority showed no significant difference in accuracy among the formulas (Haigis, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and SRK II) for patients with short AL. 7,[12][13][14][15] Only a few reports detected the significant difference. Maclaren 16 and Moschos 17 suggested Haigis was significantly more precise than Hoffer Q.…”

Protocols for Studies of Intraocular Lens Formula Accuracy

“…The references for some examples of studies compromised by (1) ME not zeroed out, [10][11][12][13][14][15] (2) comparison of target refraction results, 11 (3) comparing MAEs, 10 (4) using bilateral eyes, [11][12][13][14] and (5) using multiple IOLs 11-14 are listed.…”

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The primary goal of cataract surgery is the improvement of visual acuity. [13][14][15][16] More recent studies revealed that formulas including Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, were more accurate. 4,5 The IOL power calculation formulas are less accurate in long eyes, which is commonly defined as AL longer than 24.5 mm, [6][7][8][9] presenting a great challenge for cataract surgeons.…”