Intraocular lens formula comparison in axial hyperopia with a high-power intraocular lens of 30 or more diopters

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula predictions (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T) when using the Alcon SA60AT IOL of 30 or greater diopter (D) power. Setting: Kaiser Permanente, California, USA. Design: Multicenter retrospective consecutive case series. Methods: Data from patients having uneventful cataract surgery with insertion of a ≥30 D SA60AT IOL and preoperative LENSTAR 900 biometry were included. A single eye per qualifying patient was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis. Lens constants were optimized using a large dataset of the same IOL model including the full range of axial lengths. The optimized lens constants were then used to calculate the predicted refraction for each formula, which was compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction errors. Results: Included in the study were 182 eyes of 182 patients. From highest to lowest, the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D was the Kane (58.8%), EVO 2.0 (57.7%), Haigis (55.5%), Holladay 2 (54.9%), Olsen (53.3%), Holladay 1 (50.5%), Hill-RBF 2.0 (43.9%), SRK/T (42.9%), Barrett Universal II (36.8%), and Hoffer Q (35.7%) formulas. The Kane formula had a statistically significant lower mean absolute prediction error compared with all formulas (P < .05) except the EVO 2.0 formula. Conclusions: The Kane formula had the lowest prediction error of the formulas studied, which was statistically significant compared with all formulas except the EVO 2.0 formula.

Comparison of accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation methods using artificial intelligence

“…In a hyperopic population, the Kane method performed the best. 8 Only one paper showed a clinically minimal advantage of the Hill-RBF method 5 and one other paper showed the most accurate data from the BUII formula 2 in such a comparison. The different population, the different biometric device and other unknown factors, can explain the superiority of Hill-RBF 2.0 in our database.…”

“…Recently, several papers have compared the accuracy of results from BUII and AI formulae, and only nine papers (September, 2020) compared at least two types of AI formulae, from which five papers assessed “only” the Hill-RBF method and the Kane method. 3,5,6–8 Our aim was to assess accuracy of prediction with the help of the subjective and objective refractive results with three methods that use different AI methods for calculation of the IOL power (Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane method, Pearl-DGS method) compared to BUII. Another aim was to produce a relevant summary of papers that analyze accuracy data with at least two IOL power calculation methods using AI, on previously non-operated cataractous eyes.…”

Comparison of Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power calculation for Eyes with an Axial Length Greater Than 29.0 mm

“…Hyperopic refractive errors can result from the incorrect calculation of the IOL power required, especially in extremely high myopia [11,12]. The current study mainly focused on the accuracy comparison of well validated IOL calculation formulas in a cohort of eyes with AL longer than 29.0 mm who underwent cataract operation implanted with the 920H IOL model.…”

Die Kataraktchirurgie und das kleine Auge: Relativer anteriorer Mikrophthalmus, hohe Hyperopie und Nanophthalmus

“…Eine neuere Formel, die ebenfalls vielversprechende Ergebnisse in kurzen Augen, insbesondere bei hochgradiger Hyperopie, erzielen konnte, ist die Kane-Formel [8]. Hipólito-Fernandes et al zeigten, dass unter anderem die Kane-Formel in geringem Maße in ihrem postoperativen Ergebnis durch die Linsendicke und Vorderkammertiefe beeinflusst wird.…”

“…Eine neuere Formel, die ebenfalls vielversprechende Ergebnisse in kurzen Augen, insbesondere bei hochgradiger Hyperopie, erzielen konnte, ist die Kane-Formel [ 8 ]. Hipólito-Fernandes et al.…”