Comparison of the accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy

Li, Meng; Wang, Jinda; Zhang, Jingshang; Mao, Yingyan; Cao, Kai; Wan, Xiuhua

doi:10.1186/s40001-023-00998-8

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They reported that Barrett True-K had MedAE 0.60 + 0.80 D and 0.69 + 0.67 D at 1 and >4 months postoperative, respectively. In a recent study, Li et al 20 compared the accuracy of Barrett True, Haigis, and DK Holladay 1 in Chinese cataract patients with that of a previous RK using standard K readings obtained from IOLMaster (similar to our study). They reported that the MedAE was lowest for the Barrett True-K formula (0.62), followed by Haigis (0.76), and DK Holladay 1 (1.16).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry

Helaly,

Elhady,

Elnaggar

2023

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the accuracy of multiple traditional and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-radial keratotomy (RK) patients undergoing cataract surgery. Methods This retrospective case series included 50 eyes with prior RK who underwent routine phacoemulsification surgery with single-piece acrylic IOL implantation (A constant = 118.8). Outcomes of multiple formulas were calculated. Included formulas were SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett True-K, Haigis and Barrett True-K (target refraction of 0.50 D), Barrett Universal II, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Shammas no history, DK SRK/T, DK SRK/T (target refraction of 0.50 D), Double K (DK) Holladay 1, and DK Holladay 1 (target refraction of 0.50 D). Averages of multiple combinations of best-performing single formulas were calculated. Primary outcome is mean absolute error (MAE). Results Haigis (with −0.50 D target refraction) and DK SRK/T showed the lowest mean and median absolute errors (MedAE) followed by Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K (with −0.50 D target refraction). Combinations of 3, 4, or 5 of best performing single formulas yielded good results with >60% of cases within +0.50 D of intended refraction and MAE around 0.50 D. The best performing formulas with flatter K readings were PEARL-DGS and Haigis (with additional −0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.72 + 0.71 D and 0.70 + 0.70 D, respectively, followed by Barrett True-K (with intended −0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.75 + 0.63 D. Conclusion Using an average of three or more Haigis (with −0.50 D target refraction), the Barrett True-K, DK Holladay 1, and DK SRK/T formulas showed better outcomes than using a single formula for IOLMaster 700 standard K readings. The PEARL-DGS formula showed better accuracy in eyes with flatter K readings (<38 D).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry

Helaly,

Elhady,

Elnaggar

2023

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Utilization of the Haigis formula revealed findings in the present study that were comparable to those of Wang et al [12], Leite de Pinho Tavares et al [9], and Li et al [8], but differed from Turnbull et al [29], with the latter achieving 69.2% of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the target range, 86.5% of eyes within ± 0.75 D of the target range, and 92.3% of eyes within ± 1 D of the target range. In the Turnbull et al study [29], the Haigis calculation was performed using both a standard approach and by using a -0.50 D offset on target refraction, based on a study performed by Geggel et al [35] who stated that it may be more accurate.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Therefore, the suggested A-constants and SF constants were used by each lens' manufacturer. This resulted in an A-constant of 119.3 and SF of 1.96 for the TECNIS ZCB00 monofocal lens (Johnson & Johnson Vision, Irvine, CA, USA); an A-constant of 119.1 and SF of 1.85 for the enVista enhanced MX60E lens; and an A-constant of 118.7 and SF of 1.81 for the AcrySoft SN60WF lens [8][9][10][11]. A K-index value of 1.3375 was utilized where required [24][25][26].…”

Section: Formulasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To aid in the calculation of IOL power in post-RK eyes, the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) has an online IOL power calculator specifically for post-RK eyes, which has been found to be a useful tool [7]. Additionally, evidence of fourthand fifth-generation formulas, such as the Barrett True K formula, has been presented in current literature, showing an improved performance in reducing the mean absolute error (MAE) in the IOL calculation for post-RK eyes [8,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review

Moshirfar,

Sperry,

Altaf

et al. 2024

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group. Methods In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas. Results Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas ( P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas ( P < 0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and e...

show abstract

“…Furthermore, a recent study compared the accuracy of the Barrett True-K, Holladay 1 (D-K), and Haigis formulas for calculating IOL power, and the Barrett True-K formula was the most accurate in Chinese cataract patients with prior RK. However, even using the Barrett True-K formula, only 46.8% of eyes had an absolute error within 0.5 D (34). Thus, newer and more accurate IOL formulas are desired.…”

Section: Management Of Refractive Surprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Du,

Meng,

et al. 2023

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

show abstract

Comparison of the accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About