Intraocular Lens Calculations

Aristodemou, Petros; Cartwright, Nathaniel Knox; Sparrow, J M; Johnston, Robert L.

doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2011.02.003

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The APE of SE was defined as the absolute difference between the actual postoperative SE and predicted postoperative SE. Similarly, the MAE of SE was defined as the mean absolute difference between the actual postoperative SE and predicted postoperative SE, while the MedAE of SE was defined as the median absolute difference between the actual postoperative SE and predicted postoperative SE 25 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction accuracy of conventional and total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

Ryu

Jun

Kim

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the accuracy of total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes treated with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. The retrospective study included a retrospective analysis of data from 62 patients (91 eyes) who underwent uneventful femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with Artis PL E (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL implantation by a single surgeon between May 2020 and December 2020 in Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. The new IOLMaster 700 biometry device (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) was used to calculate TK and K. The mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated for all IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II). There was strong agreement between K and TK (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99), with a mean difference of 0.04 D. For all formulas, MAE tended to be lower for TK than for K, and relatively lower MAE and MedAE values were observed for SRK/T and Holladay 1. Furthermore, for all formulas, a greater proportion of eyes fell within ± 0.25 D of the predicted postoperative spherical equivalent range in the TK group than in the K group. However, differences in MAEs, MedAEs, and percentages of eyes within the above prediction errors were not statistically significant. In conclusion, TK and K exhibit comparable performance for refractive prediction in eyes undergoing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction accuracy of conventional and total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

Ryu

Jun

Kim

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…APE was defined as the absolute difference between the actual postoperative SE and the predicted postoperative SE, and the mean absolute errors (MAEs) and the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were the mean and median values of APE, respectively. 10 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the Kane Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Comparison with Existing Formulas: A Retrospective Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison with existing formulas by incorporating optional variables into calculation. Materials and Methods This retrospective review consisted of 78 eyes of patients who had undergone uneventful phacoemulsification with intraocular implantation at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between February 2020 and January 2021. The Kane formula was compared with six of the existing IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay1, Holladay2, Barrett Universal II) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ±0.50D, and ±1.00D. Results The Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs (0.26±0.17D), MedAEs (0.28D), and percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ± 0.50D, and ±1.00D, although there was no statistically significant difference between Barrett Universal II-SRK/T ( p =0.06), and Barrett Universal II-Kane formula ( p <0.51). Following the Barrett Universal II formula, the Kane formula demonstrated the second most accurate formula with MAEs (0.30±0.19D) and MedAEs (0.28D). However, no statistical difference was shown between Kane-Barrett Universal II ( p =0.51) and Kane-SRK/T ( p =0.14). Conclusion Although slightly better refractory outcome was noted in the Barrett Universal II formula, the performance of the Kane formula in refractive prediction was comparable in IOL power calculation, marking its superiority over many conventional IOL formulas, such as HofferQ, Haigis, Holladay1, and Holladay2.

show abstract

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

Srivannaboon

Chirapapaisan

et al. 2013

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intraocular Lens Calculations

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Prediction accuracy of conventional and total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

Prediction accuracy of conventional and total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

Accuracy of the Kane Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Comparison with Existing Formulas: A Retrospective Review

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About