Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia: Comparison of Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas

Xiao, Rong; He, Wenwen; Zhu, Qian; Qian, Dong−Jin; Lu, Yi; Zhu, Xiangjia

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.025

Cited by 72 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study used toric IOL online calculators provided by the respective manufacturers for cylinder power and axis calculation. Nowadays, Barrett Universal Ⅱ Formula was often used in studies (32,33). The current study achieved good satisfaction scores in subjective visual quality evaluated using a questionnaire in both groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof® IQ and TECNIS® toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Yang

Qin

et al. 2020

Exp Ther Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There was no statistically significant between postoperative CS in the AcrySof and Tecnis groups. Rotations of >10˚ were considered to be significant and were identified in three eyes. The mean IOL rotation showed no statistically significant difference (AcrySof group, 0.24±5.54˚; Tecnis group,-0.19±6.28˚; P= 0.416). The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.46±1.21 in the AcrySof group and 8.78±1.44 in the Tecnis group (P=0.260). The results of the current study indicated that patients with cataracts with corneal astigmatism undergoing phacoemulsification with AcrySof IQ and TECNIS toric IOL implantation achieved similar clinical efficacy in term of visual outcomes, refraction correction, CS, rotational stability and satisfaction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…The current study used toric IOL online calculators provided by the respective manufacturers for cylinder power and axis calculation. Nowadays, Barrett Universal II Formula was often used in studies ( 32 , 33 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof® IQ and TECNIS® toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Yang

Qin

et al. 2020

Exp Ther Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, none of these studies focused on which formula is best when choosing the right diopter for the trifocal lens. Comparing the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula, several studies concluded that this formula is well suited in calculating IOL power for all types of eyes ( 1-3 ), including those with high myopia ( 35 , 36 ) rendering the lowest predictive error compared with SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q formulas. The performances of the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF formulas were proven comparable in long eyes in two studies evaluating the accuracy of new generation vergence formulas and formulas based on artificial intelligence ( 37 , 38 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fact that Haigis showed the smallest RPE in our study might be explained by the fact that the formula constants were optimized regularly in collaboration with the lens manufacturers, which obtained data from databases containing all the recent cases. The Barrett Universal II formula, which showed the greatest results in the most recent studies ( 1 , 3 , 35 , 36 ) is newer, and not yet widely used, which may affect the optimization process. Nevertheless, it did come in second place for this group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II were compared in prediction of postoperative refraction for multifocal and implants using a single optical biometry device. The authors included 88 refractive lens exchange and cataract surgeries, with AcrySof IQ PanOptix implant (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). All eyes were divided into three groups based on axial length (AL), group 1: <22 mm (14 eyes), group 2: 22-24.5 mm (68 eyes) and group 3: >24.5 mm (6 eyes). The refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute error (MAE) were calculated for 5 different formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Haigis and Barrett Universal II. For eyes with the AL between 22 mm and 24.5 mm the greatest percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.25 D was 32.4% for Haigis formula, followed by Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 with 29.4%. The percentage of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D was 100% only for Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1, 94.1% for SRK/T and 91.2% for Haigis and Hoffer Q. The first and third group with AL <22 and >24.5 mm were too small to have statistical significance due to the reluctancy to use multifocal IOLs on extreme ALs. ANOVA test showed no statistical difference (P=0.166) between the RPEs measured for each formula in this cohort. This study showed no statistical difference between formulas for this trifocal lens implant. There was a tendency for the RPE to be within ±0.25 D for most of the eyes with the Haigis formula, and within ±0.50 D for all the eyes with the Barrett Universal II formula in the group with the AL between 22 and 24.5 mm.

show abstract

“…Postoperative spherical equivalent prediction errors or manifest refraction after cataract surgery are always used for the study on IOL predictability of formulas [13,14]. Since SMILE surgery was introduced in 2011, few patients have met the age-related cataract problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency evaluation of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone small-incision lenticule extraction

Chen

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare the differences in the consistency of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations with four different formulas for cataract surgery after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), and to select the most suitable formula to calculate the IOL power of cataract patients after SMILE. Methods 98 eyes of 51 patients who underwent small-incision lenticule extraction (preoperative spherical equivalents, -2.05 to -10.10D) between June 2019 to July 2019 in our department were included, all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. IOLMaster 500 was used for biometric measurement and Haigis-L correction formula was calculated. AL-Scan was used to calculate Shammas-PL correction formula, Camellin-Calossi formula and Barret True K formula. We simulated the intraocular lens calculation before cataract surgery in all eyes with these four formulas. The consistency of the calculated IOL powers were evaluated by correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, and Bland-Altman analysis.Results The average values of Barret True K formula, Shammas-PL correction formula, Camellin-Calossi formula and Haigis-L correction formula are 22.32±1.14 D, 23.28±1.21 D, 22.91±1.26 D, 23.54±1.23 D respectively. Simple correlation analysis: The average values of these four formulas were correlated, and the correlation coefficients were 0.94(Barrett Ture K and Shammas-PL), 0.98 (Barrett Ture K and Camellin-Calossi), 0.89(Barrett Ture K and Haigis-L), 0.98(Haigis-L and Shammas-PL), 0.88(Haigis-L and Camellin-Calossi) and 0.93(Shammas-PL and Camellin-Calossi)(significant, p=0.00); One-way ANOVA: There was no significant difference between the Shammas-PL correction formula and the Haigis-L correction formula. The Camellin-Calossi formula and the Barret True K formula were significantly different from the Haigis-L correction formula. Bland-Altman analysis: for the difference-mean scatter plot and the ratio-mean scatter plot: the maximum allowable error of the 95% limit is 9.61%, 7.45%, and 2.99%, respectively, indicating that the results are consistent. Conclusions Haigis-L and Shammas-PL formulas had good consistency when calculating the IOL power in eyes after SMILE.

show abstract

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia: Comparison of Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas

Cited by 72 publications

References 25 publications

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>®</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>®</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>®</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>®</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

Consistency evaluation of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone small-incision lenticule extraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia: Comparison of Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas

Cited by 72 publications

References 25 publications

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>&reg;</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>&reg;</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>&reg;</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>&reg;</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Accuracy of five intraocular lens formulas in eyes with trifocal lens implant

Consistency evaluation of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone small-incision lenticule extraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>®</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>®</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of AcrySof<sup>®</sup> IQ and TECNIS<sup>®</sup> toric intraocular lenses: A real‑world study