Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose To compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes. Methods Four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myopic eyes were defined as an axial length more than 24.5 mm. There are 13 formulae to participate in the final comparison (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis for traditional formulae, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, T2, VRF, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, LSF for the new-generation formulae). The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D. Results A total of 2273 eyes in 15 studies were enrolled in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the new-generation formulae showed a relatively more accurate outcome in comparison with traditional formulae. The percentage of eyes with a predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D (± 1.0D) of Kane, EVO and LSF was higher than 80% (95%), which was only significantly different from Hoffer Q (all P < 0.05). Moreover, another two new-generation formulae, Barrett Universal II and Olsen, had higher percentages than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I and Haigis for eyes with predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D (all P < 0.05). In ± 0.5D group, Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.02), and Holladay I was better than EVO (P = 0.03) and LSF (P = 0.009), and Hoffer Q had a lower percentage than EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF and LSF (P = 0.007, 0.004, 0.002, 0.03, respectively). Barrett Universal II was better than T2 (P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparison. Conclusion The new-generation formula is more accurate in intraocular lens power calculation for axial myopic eyes in comparison with the third- or fourth-generation formula.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review

“…Barrett Universal II was better than T2 ( P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T ( P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparisons [ 12 ].…”

How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Subgroup analysis further demonstrated that the Barrett II outperformed the Haigis for AL ranging from 24.50 to 26.00 mm, but the difference was not statistically significant when the AL exceeded 26.00 mm. Furthermore, an update meta-analysis research by Li et al [ 25 ] suggested that some new-generation, such as Kane, EVO, LSF, Barrett II, and Hill-RBF, showed promising results in IOL power calculation in cataract patients with long AL, with a higher percentage of eyes having predictable outcomes compared to traditional formulas. Previous studies have consistently shown that as the increase of AL, the deviation of IOL power becomes more significant.…”

Intraocular lens power calculation formulas: a scientometric analysis

“…In the developmental history of IOL power calculation, an increasing number of formulas have been devised [ 6 - 8 ] to improve precision and accuracy, aiming to avoid the adverse effects caused by miscalculation [ 23 ] . The current study analyzed and mapped the research in the field of IOL power calculation formulas, providing insight into the pace of formula development since the 1940s, and revealing the rapid increase in the last few years.…”

“…For trifocal IOLs, the Olsen and Barrett formulas yield the best overall results, with the Kane and Olsen formulas being the most accurate for axial lengths up to 22.5 mm [ 5 ] . New-generation formulas outperform older ones for patients with myopia and short eyes according to two meta-analyses [ 6 , 7 ] . The Barrett Universal II formula is most suitable for normal/long eyes, while the Haigis and EVO formulas are preferred for short eyes according to another study [ 8 ] .…”