Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Research Articles

Accuracy of 7 artificial intelligence based intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long Caucasian eyes: Short title: AI-based IOL calculation in extra-long eyes

To compare 7 AI-based IOL power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes DESIGN: : Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis. SETTING: Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Ukraine STUDY POPULATION: : Patients with highly myopic eyes, who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification OBSERVATION PROCEDURES: Prior to cataract surgery IOL power was calculated. The power of the implanted IOL was randomly selected from the outcomes of SRK/T, Holladay 2 or Barrett Universal II. Three months after phacoemulsification, refraction was measured. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Hoffer QST, Karmona and Zhu-Lu. root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D RESULTS: : Forty eight eyes with axial length exceeding 30.00 mm were studied. Hill-RBF 3.0 yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.788) with statistical superiority only over Karmona (0.956, p=0.021). In terms of MedAE, outcomes obtained by Hoffer QST (0.442) and Hill-RBF (0.490) were statistically significant vs LSF AI (0.800, p=0.013, p=0.008, respectively). The highest percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.50 D was achieved by Hill-RBF 3.0, Kane and Hoffer QST (54.17% each) statistically significant as follows: both Hill-RBF and Kane vs LSF AI (27.08%) and Karmona (39.58%), and Hoffer QST vs LSF AI. All tested formulas demonstrated comparable trueness, with Hill-RBF 3.0 being more accurate than Karmona (RMSAE), and LSF AI being less accurate than Hoffer QST and Hill-RBF 3.0 (MedAE).

Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative-diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia.

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs. Retrospective case series. K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, …. Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization. With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization. With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.

Impact of the Minimization of Standard Deviation Before Zeroization of the Mean Bias on the Performance of IOL Power Formulas.

In cataract surgery, accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations are crucial for optimal postoperative refractive outcomes. This study explores the impact of prioritizing the reduction of the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors before mean prediction error (PE) adjustment on IOL calculation formula precision and accuracy. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 4885 eyes from 2611 patients, all implanted with the same IOL model, comparing four traditional IOL power calculation formulas: SRK/T, Holladay 1, Haigis, and Hoffer Q. We introduced new constants aiming to minimize the SD of PE (new_const) against traditionally optimized constants (classic_const), using a heteroscedastic statistical method for comparison. Validation of precision improvements used a secondary dataset of 262 eyes from 132 patients. We observed significant reductions in mean absolute error (MAE) across training and test sets for Hoffer Q, Holladay, and Haigis formulas, indicating accuracy enhancements. Optimized constants significantly reduced SDs for Haigis from 0.3255 to 0.3153 and for Hoffer Q from 0.3521 to 0.3387. These optimizations also increased the proportion of eyes achieving PE within ±0.25D. SRK/T showed improved SD from 0.3596 to 0.3585. However, Holladay 1 showed minimal change with no significant improvement. In the test dataset, significant reductions in SD were observed for Haigis and Hoffer Q. Prioritizing SD minimization before adjusting mean PE significantly improves the precision of selected IOL power formulas, enhancing postoperative refractive outcomes. The effectiveness varies among formulas, underscoring the need for formula-specific adjustments. The study presents a novel two-step approach for optimizing IOL power calculations.

Assessing the predictability of five intraocular lens calculation methods in eyes with prior myopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction.

To evaluate and compare the predictability of five methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with prior keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) for the treatment of myopia. A retrospective case study included 100 eyes of 52 patients who underwent myopia and myopia with astigmatism treatment with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative measurements of optical biometry and corneal tomography were obtained. The spherical equivalent of the refractive change induced by surgery was converted to the corneal plane (SMILE-dif). A physically well-defined method was developed in which the same IOL model was implanted before and after SMILE. IOL power was calculated using ray-tracing (RT-Sirius), and several IOL power calculation formulas (Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II Formula, Hoffer QST) before surgery. After surgery, IOL power was calculated with RT-Sirius, Kane using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5mm by ray tracing, EVO 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK, Barrett True K and Hoffer QST Post Myopic LASIK/PRK after surgery. The difference between the refractive error induced by the IOL before and after SMILE in the corneal plane (IOL-dif) was compared with SMILE-dif. The predicted error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-dif and IOL-dif. The PE obtained was 0.26 ± 0.55 diopters (D), 0.10 ± 0.45 D, 0.40 ± 0.37 D, -0.03 ± 0.36 D, 0.02 ± 0.51 D, with RT-Sirius, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett True K, and Hoffer QST respectively. PE was not statistically significantly different between Barrett True K and Hoffer QST, with differences being more homogeneous with Barrett, (variance σ2 = 0,13). The absolute EP obtained with Barrett True K achieved 84% of cases within ± 0.5 D, followed by Kane (72%), Hoffer QST (65%), EVO (61%) and RT-Sirius (59%). Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for the correction of myopia. What is known The literature regarding IOL power calculation after SMILE is sparse, and the methods used to estimate corneal power following LASIK/PRK may not be applicable to SMILE procedures. The most common approach to investigating the predictability of IOL calculation formulas involves a theoretical model encompassing the virtual implantation of an IOL. What is new The Hoffer QST formula, Kane formula using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5mm, EVO 2.0, and Sirius' Ray Tracing software had not been previously evaluated using this approach. The Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for myopia correction, outperforming Ray Tracing.

Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios. Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III. Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas. Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Intraocular aphakia correction in patients with prior keratorefractive surgery: literature review. Part 1

Introduction. An increasing number of patients with a history of keratorefractive surgeries are presenting to ophthalmologists with complaints of vision loss due to cataracts. Treating this group poses surgeons with a range of unique challenges: high demands for vision quality, complexities in selecting the appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula and IOL model, target refraction, as well as the need to modify cataract extraction techniques and address specific postoperative considerations. Despite advancements in the development of new IOL designs and calculation formulas, clinical and functional outcomes in this group remain inferior to those in patients without prior keratorefractive procedures. A paradigm shift is emerging, advocating for a personalized approach in the diagnosis and management of cataracts in these patients. However, discussing all aspects within a single review proved impractical, leading us to divide it into two parts. The objective of the first part of this study is to assess the specific considerations for aphakia correction in patients who have undergone keratorefractive procedures, based on literature data, while taking into account the long-term complications of refractive surgery. Additionally, this part will address the fundamental principles of the design and functionality of pseudoaccommodating intraocular lenses (IOLs). Materials and methods. A selection of over 200 peer-reviewed publications from resources such as PubMed, eLibrary, CyberLeninka, Science Direct, and Google Scholar over the past 30 years was conducted. The first part of the review includes 49 publications. This work represents an analysis of contemporary literature, reflecting the impact of keratorefractive surgeries on the successful performance of phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. Results. The findings from the first part of the analysis indicate that a detailed medical history of previously performed keratorefractive corrections – specifically their type and potential long-term complications – play a significant role in determining the surgical treatment strategy. Standard examination methods do not always fully reflect the optical characteristics of the cornea in these patients. Extended preoperative assessments, including specialized techniques such as keratotopography and keratotomography, are crucial for identifying corneal irregularities and for the subsequent selection of the type of intraocular lens (IOL) for aphakia correction in patients who have undergone keratorefractive surgeries. Studies show high effectiveness not only in using monofocal lenses but also in the potential application of pseudoaccommodating IOLs, including those with extended depth of focus and multifocal lenses. The selection of optimal formulas for IOL calculation, as well as the clinical aspects influencing refraction in the postoperative period, will be addressed in the second part of the literature review. Conclusion. The increase in the number of refractive surgeries has led to a growing population of patients with cataracts following ametropia correction. This has spurred the development of new IOL variants with extended depth of focus. However, literature data on their effectiveness in patients who have undergone keratorefractive procedures remain limited. Multicenter prospective studies are needed to evaluate new IOL models and to determine the optimal surgical strategies for this category of patients.

Effect of Posterior Keratometry and Corneal Radius Ratio on the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Formulas After Myopic LASIK/PRK.

To investigate the impact of back-to-front corneal radius ratio (B/F ratio) and posterior keratometry (PK) on the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery. A retrospective, consecutive case series study included 101 patients (132 eyes) with cataract after myopic LASIK/PRK. Mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute PE (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D) of PE were determined. The Barrett True K-TK formula exhibited the lowest MAE (0.59 D) and MedAE (0.48 D) and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of PE (54.55%) in total. In eyes with a B/F ratio of 0.70 or less and PK of -5.70 D or greater, the Potvin-Hill formula displayed the lowest MAE (0.46 to 0.67 D). The Barrett True-TK exhibited the highest prediction accuracy in eyes after myopic LASIK/PRK overall. However, for eyes with a low B/F ratio and flat PK, the Potvin-Hill performed best. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(9):e635-e644.].

Description of a new method to calculate the equator of the crystalline lens using AS-OCT images: Accuracy in non-dilated measurements.

To establish a methodology for objectively estimating the Lens Equatorial Plane (LEP) from clinical images, comparing LEP with dilated versus non-dilated pupils. A cohort of 91 eyes from 60 patients undergoing preoperative assessments for cataract surgery was evaluated. Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography (AS-OCT) images were analysed under conditions of pharmacologically induced pupil dilation versus a non-dilated pupil. Geometrical parameters, including LEP, intersection diameter (ID), lens thickness (LT), anterior and posterior lens thickness were automatically calculated by applying standard image processing techniques to clinical AS-OCT images. Significant differences in lens parameters, including LEP, were observed between dilated and non-dilated conditions (all p < 0.001). A strong linear correlation was found across all geometrical variables under both conditions (r[LEP] = 0.64, r[ID] = 0.78, r[LT] = 0.99, all p < 0.001); enabling reliable correction of these differences. The study introduces an objective methodology for LEP calculation, emphasising the need to consider the eye's physiological state during preoperative measurements. Incorporating LEP into future intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas and replacing the habitual effective lens position may potentially improve the accuracy of IOL power estimation and thus postoperative visual outcomes.

Does blepharospasm effect biometric parameters and intraocular lens power calculations?

To investigate the effect of botulinum toxin-A (BTX-A) treatment on corneal topography, ocular biometry and keratometry in patients with benign essential blepharospasm (BEB) and hemifacial spasm (HFS). This study comprised 66 eyes of 33 patients with BEB and 5 eyes of 5 patients with HFS who underwent BTX-A injections consecutively. Refractive error values, tear break-up time (TBUT), corneal topography [corneal power of flat axis (K1) and steep axis (K2), mean corneal power (Km), corneal astigmatism (K2-K1)] and ocular optical biometry [axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD)] were recorded before BTX-A treatment and 1 month after BTX-A treatment. The researchers calculated the expected emmetropic intraocular lens power (emm-IOL) using the SRK-T, Holladay, Hoffer-Q and Haigis formulas at each examination. K1 (43.48 ± 2.02 vs. 43.57 ± 2.08, p = 0.036), Km (43.91 ± 1.99 vs. 43.99 ± 2.06, p = 0.024) and ACD (3.22 (2.77-3.76) vs. 3.41 (2.99-4.02), p < 0.001) values were found to be significantly higher. The expected emm-IOL according to the SRK-T (21.04 ± 1.6 vs. 20.93 ± 1.6, p = 0.048), Holladay (21.05 ± 1.6 vs. 20.91 ± 1.62, p = 0.037) and Hoffer-Q (21.08 ± 1.65 vs. 20.94 ± 1.68, p = 0.038) decreased significantly. The expected emm-IOL according to the Haigis formula slightly decreased, but it was not significant (p = 0.386). Additionally, TBUT was found to be significantly lower (p < 0.001) after BTX-A injection. Other parameters were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Our study is the first in the literature to compare optic biometry data and intraocular lens power calculation formulas before and after BTX-A injection in eyes with BEB and HFS. BTX-A injection could play an important role in changing the keratometric and ACD values. It should be considered that IOL power calculations that might be unpredictable due to blepharospasm, so repeated measurements and especially measurements after releasing the spasm with BTX-A injections, are necessary in BEB and HFS.

A Multi Comparison of 8 Different Intraocular Lens Biometry Formulae, Including a Machine Learning Thin Lens Formula (MM) and an Inbuilt Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Ray Tracing Formula.

A comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae, including SRK/T, HofferQ, Holladay 1, Haigis, MM, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and AS-OCT ray tracing, was performed. One hundred eyes implanted with either the Rayone EMV RAO200E (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited, Worthing, UK) or the Artis Symbiose (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL were included. Biometry was obtained using IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the target were compared, with ±0.75D considered a key metric. The highest percentage within ±0.75D was found with MM (96%) followed by the Haigis (94%) for the enhanced monofocal IOL. SRK/T (94%) had the highest percentage within ±0.75D, followed by Holladay 1, MM, BUII, and ray tracing (all 90%) for the multifocal IOL. No statistically significant difference in MAE was found with both IOLs. EVO showed the lowest MAE for the enhanced monofocal and ray tracing for the multifocal IOL. EVO and ray tracing showed the lowest MedAE for the two respective IOLs. A similar performance with high accuracy across formulae was found. MM and ray tracing appear to have similar accuracy to the well-established formulae and displayed a high percentage of eyes within ±0.75D.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae for the Yamane technique of secondary fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the refractive outcomes of the Yamane technique for intrascleral fixation of intraocular lenses (SF-IOL) and compare the predictive ability of the various intraocular lens power calculation formulae commonly used in conjunction with the technique. A literature search was conducted in the Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published from January 2014 to May 2023. Studies that met the predetermined inclusion criteria were included and subjected to analysis. The primary outcome evaluated was the refractive predictive error, defined as the difference between predicted refraction and post-operative manifest refraction. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, with a cumulative sample size of 615 patients (mean age: 66.6 years). Various IOL formulae were used, with SRK/T being the most frequently adopted formula. The overall mean refractive predictive error for all formulae combined was -0.02 D, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.99). Subgroup analysis for individual formulae also showed no significant difference from predicted error for any formula (p > 0.05). The Yamane technique for SF-IOL shows promising refractive outcomes, and the choice of IOL power calculation formula should be tailored based on patient characteristics and surgeon preference. No formula demonstrated superior predictive ability over others. Further research is needed to develop formulae specifically for eyes with secondary aphakia and poor capsular support.

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas based on swept-source OCT biometer in cataract patients with phakic intraocular lens

PurposeTo research the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas and investigate the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOLMaster 700) in patients with posterior chamber phakic IOL (PC-pIOL).MethodsRetrospective case series. The IOLMaster 700 biometer was used to measure axial length (AL) and anterior segment parameters. The traditional formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Haigis) with or without Wang-Koch (WK) AL adjustment, and new-generation formulas (Barret Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] v2.0, Kane, Pearl-DGS) were utilized in IOL power calculation.ResultsThis study enrolled 24 eyes of 24 patients undergoing combined PC-pIOL removal and cataract surgery at Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China. The median absolute prediction error in ascending order was EVO 2.0 (0.33), Kane (0.35), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.42), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.44), Haigis-WKC1 (0.46), Pearl-DGS (0.47), BUII (0.58), Haigis (0.75), SRK/T (0.79), and Holladay 1 (1.32). The root-mean-square absolute error in ascending order was Haigis-WKC1 (0.591), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.622), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.623), EVO (0.673), Kane (0.678), Pearl-DGS (0.753), BUII (0.863), Haigis (1.061), SRK/T (1.188), and Holladay 1 (1.513). A detailed analysis of ACD and LT measurement error revealed negligible impact on refractive outcomes in BUII and EVO 2.0 when these parameters were incorporated or omitted in the formula calculation.ConclusionThe Kane, EVO 2.0, and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment displayed high prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the ACD and LT measurement error does not exert a significant influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes implanted with PC-pIOL.

Accuracy of new intraocular lens power calculation formula for short and long eyes using segmental refractive indices.

To evaluate the accuracy of a new intraocular lens power calculation formula using segmental refractive index-based axial length (AL). Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Japan. Retrospective observational study. This study included patients undergoing preoperative examination for cataract surgery with the new Barrett True AL (BTAL) and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formulas using segmental refractive index, and conventional Barrett Universal II (BU II) formula using equivalent refractive index. The predicted refractive error of each formula was compared with the postoperative subjective spherical equivalent. The mean prediction error (MPE) in the short AL group (≤22 mm; 44 eyes) was 0.32 ± 0.40 diopter (D) for BU II, 0.22 ± 0.37 D for BTAL, and 0.10 ± 0.37 D for EVO ( P < .0001). MPE in the long AL group (≥26 mm; 92 eyes) was 0.01 ± 0.32 D for BU II, 0.04 ± 0.32 D for BTAL, and 0.09 ± 0.32 D for EVO ( P < .0001). In patients with an AL ≥ 28 mm, BU II showed a myopic trend in 57.1% of cases, while BTAL and EVO showed a hyperopic trend in 71.4%. The MPE for patients with an AL ≥ 28 mm was -0.16 ± 0.34 D for BU II, 0.18 ± 0.33 D for BTAL, and 0.16 ± 0.32 D for EVO ( P < .0001). The new EVO and BTAL formulas showed higher accuracy than BU II in short eyes, whereas there was no difference in long eyes.

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Phacovitrectomy.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the refractive error in patients undergoing combined phacovitrectomy with and without gas tamponade. This was a retrospective chart review including patients undergoing phacoemulsification alone (Group 1), combined phacovitrectomy for epiretinal membrane (Group 2), and combined phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) (Group 3). Axial length and keratometry were measured using an optical biometric system (Argos, Alcon Laboratories. Inc.), and a three-piece intraocular lens (IOL; NX-70S) was implanted in all groups. In each group, the prediction error at 3 months was calculated using IOL power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Hill-RBF, Kane, and Barrett Universal II) for each eye. Outcome measures included the mean prediction error (MPE), its standard deviation (SD), and the mean absolute error (MAE). The change in IOL position at 3 months was also assessed using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. A total of 104 eyes were included (Group 1: 30; Group 2: 34; Group 3: 40 eyes). The MPE was -0.08 ± 0.37 diopters (D), -0.26 ± 0.32 D, and -0.59 ± 0.34 D in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively, using the Barrett Universal II formula (P < 0.01, ANOVA). The movement forward in the IOL position was 0.95 ± 0.16mm, 0.94 ± 0.12mm, and 1.07 ± 0.20mm in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively (P < 0.01). No significant difference was shown in MPE among the four formulas after combined phacovitrectomy with gas (P = 0.531). Phacovitrectomy in RRD induced a significant myopic shift using any of the clinically available formulas. This suggests that myopic shift should be taken into consideration for better refractive outcomes in phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade in RRD.

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery.

To evaluate the prediction accuracy of various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas on American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator and Barrett True-K total keratometry (TK) in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. This retrospective study included eyes with history of myopic laser refractive surgery, which have undergone clear or cataractous lens extraction by phacoemulsification followed by IOL implantation. Those who underwent uneventful crystalline lens extraction were included. Eyes with any complication of refractive surgery or those with eventful lens extraction procedure and those who were lost to follow-up were excluded. Formulas compared were Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS average power, ASCRS maximum power on the ASCRS post-refractive calculator and the IOLMaster 700 Barrett True-K TK. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between the implanted IOL power and the predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS online calculator. Forty post-myopic laser-refractive surgery eyes of 26 patients were included. Friedman's test revealed that Shammas formula, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS maximum power were significantly different from all other formulas (P < 0.00001 for each). Median absolute error (MedAE) was the least for Shammas and Barrett True-K TK formulas (0.28 [0.14, 0.36] and 0.28 [0.21, 0.39], respectively) and the highest for Wang-Koch-Maloney (1.29 [0.97, 1.61]). Shammas formula had the least variance (0.14), while Wang-Koch-Maloney formula had the maximum variance (2.66). In post-myopic laser refractive surgery eyes, Shammas formula and Barrett True-K TK no-history formula on ASCRS calculator are more accurate in predicting IOL powers.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Children-A Systematic Review.

Objectives: The selection of an appropriate formula for intraocular lens power calculation is crucial in phacoemulsification, particularly in pediatric patients. The most commonly used formulas are described and their accuracy evaluated in this study. Methods: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for children's eyes published from 2019-2024. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Google Scholar) using the combination of the following key words: "IOL power calculation formula", "pediatric cataract", "congenital cataract", "pediatric intraocular lens implantation", "lens power estimation", "IOL power selection", "phacoemulsification", "Hoffer Q", "Holladay 1", "SRK/T", "Barrett Universal II", "Hill-RBF", and "Kane". A total of 14 of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the maximum sample sizes and the greatest number of compared formulas were considered. Results: The outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to assess the accuracy of the formulas. In terms of MAE, Hoffer Q yielded the best result most often, just ahead of SRK/T and Barrett Universal II, which, together with Holladay 1, most often yielded the second-best outcomes. Considering patients with PE within ±1.0 D, Barrett Universal II most often gave the best results and Holladay 1 most often gave the second-best. Conclusions: Barrett Universal II seems to be the most accurate formula for intraocular lens calculation for children's eyes. Very good postoperative outcomes can also be achieved using the Holladay 1 formula. However, there is still no agreement in terms of formula choice.

Spherical equivalent prediction analysis in intraocular lens power calculations using Eyetemis: a comprehensive approach.

To compare 2 different datasets, using Eyetemis, an online analytical tool designed for assessing the spherical equivalent prediction errors (SEQ-PEs) of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery. Institutional. Retrospective case series. The study comprised 2 distinct datasets of patients who had undergone successful cataract surgery. Dataset 1 includes standard eyes, whereas Dataset 2 includes eyes with keratoconus. An online tool was used for SEQ-PE analysis across the 2 datasets, adhering to ISO standards for evaluating accuracy based on trueness and precision. The tool incorporates robust t tests for comparing the trimmed mean of the data, adjusting for heteroscedasticity. IOL constants in Dataset 1 were optimized for the comparison of Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (BUII) formulas. In Dataset 2, IOL constants from the IOLCon website were used for the comparison of the BUII and its designated KCN version: Barrett TrueK Keratoconus (TrueK [KCN]). For Dataset 1, the trimmed mean SEQ-PE values of all formulas were not significantly different from zero. BUII had superior precision and accuracy compared with all other formulas, except from Haigis ( P ≤ .04). For Dataset 2, BUII's trimmed-mean SEQ-PE was significantly different from zero (0.59 diopters [D], P < .01), unlike the TrueK (KCN) (0.12 D, P = .10). In addition, TrueK (KCN) exhibited enhanced precision and accuracy relative to BUII ( P < .01). The online analysis tool provides a streamlined approach for assessing the prediction accuracy of SEQ refraction after cataract surgery, effectively evaluating trueness, precision, and overall accuracy through the use of advanced statistical methods.

Comparing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using artificial intelligence and traditional formulas in highly myopic patients: a meta-analysis.

The accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations is one of the key indicators for determining the success of cataract surgery. However, in highly myopic patients, the calculation errors are relatively larger than those in general patients. With the continuous development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, there has also been a constant emergence of AI-related calculation formulas. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of AI calculation formulas in calculating the power of IOL for highly myopic patients. We searched the relevant literature through August 2023 using three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Six IOL calculation formulas were compared: Kane, Hill-RBF, EVO, Barrett II, Haigis, and SRK/T. The included metrics were the mean absolute error (MAE) and percentage of errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D. The results showed that the MAE of Kane was significantly lower than that of Barrett II (mean difference = - 0.03 D, P = 0.02), SRK/T (MD = - 0.08 D, P = 0.02), and Haigis (MD = - 0.12 D, P < 0.00001). The percentage refractive prediction errors for Kane at ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were significantly greater than those for SRK/T (P = 0.007, 0.003, and 0.01, respectively) and Haigis (P = 0.009, 0.0001, and 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant differences were noted between Hill-RBF and Barret, but Hill-RBF was significantly better than SRK/T and Haigis. The AI calculation formulas showed more accurate results compared with traditional formulas. Among them, Kane has the best performance in calculating IOL degrees for highlymyopic patients.

Comparative accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas when targeting myopia

PurposeThis study aims to compare the accuracies of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas when targeting myopia versus emmetropia. MethodsA total of 450 patients were included, with 225 patients targeting emmetropia and 225 patients aiming for approximately −2.0 diopters of myopia. This retrospective analysis utilized data from a single eye of each patient, with preoperative biometric measurements obtained using the IOL Master 700. The study considered established formulas such as Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T, as well as modern formulas including Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen, and PEARL-DGS. Statistical analyses, including Friedman test and post hoc analysis, were employed to compare the accuracy of each IOL power calculation formula between the two groups. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify variables influencing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas. ResultsIn targeting myopia, all IOL formulas tended to exhibit a greater refractive error compared to when targeting emmetropic eyes. Notably, the Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay 2 formulas were found to be highly influenced by this trend, while the modern formulas were less affected. ConclusionThe accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas diminishes when targeting myopia in comparison to emmetropia. However, the modern formulas appear less susceptible to this trend. Consequently, when aiming for myopia, the use of the modern formulas is recommended for enhanced accuracy in IOL power calculation.

A New Method to Minimize the Standard Deviation and Root Mean Square of the Prediction Error of Single-Optimized IOL Power Formulas.

The purpose of this study was to develop a simplified method to approximate constants minimizing the standard deviation (SD) and the root mean square (RMS) of the prediction error in single-optimized intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas. The study introduces analytical formulas to determine the optimal constant value for minimizing SD and RMS in single-optimized IOL power calculation formulas. These formulas were tested against various datasets containing biometric measurements from cataractous populations and included 10,330 eyes and 4 different IOL models. The study evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed method by comparing the outcomes with those obtained using traditional reference methods. In optimizing IOL constants, minor differences between reference and estimated A-constants were found, with the maximum deviation at -0.086 (SD, SRK/T, and Vivinex) and -0.003 (RMS, PEARL DGS, and Vivinex). The largest discrepancy for third-generation formulas was -0.027mm (SD, Haigis, and Vivinex) and 0.002mm (RMS, Hoffer Q, and PCB00/SN60WF). Maximum RMS differences were -0.021 and +0.021, both involving Hoffer Q. Post-minimization, the largest mean prediction error was 0.726 diopters (D; SD) and 0.043 D (RMS), with the highest SD and RMS after adjustments at 0.529 D and 0.875 D, respectively, indicating effective minimization strategies. The study simplifies the process of minimizing SD and RMS in single-optimized IOL power predictions, offering a valuable tool for clinicians. However, it also underscores the complexity of achieving balanced optimization and suggests the need for further research in this area. The study presents a novel, clinically practical approach for optimizing IOL power calculations.