Search

Abstract Background To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). Methods In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. Results In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P

Background: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. Results: In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group. Conclusions: Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIM: To compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens(IOL)calculation formulas in cataract patients with axial length longer than 28mm and a history of radial keratotomy(RK).METHODS: Retrospective study. The medical records of 19 cataract patients(29 eyes)after RK and with axial length longer than 28mm who underwent cataract surgery from January 2011 to July 2020 in Beijing Tongren Hospital were analyzed. The absolute error(AE)of the difference among three different formulas was calculated. AE refers to the absolute value between the actual spherical equivalent after cataract surgery and the spherical equivalent predicted by the IOL formula. The AE values of the three formulas and the percentages of eyes with AE≤0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 2.0D were calculated and compared.RESULTS: The AE values of the three formulas were significantly different(χ2=8.759, P=0.013). The Barrett True-K formula had the smallest median AE, which was only 0.62(0.20, 1.15)D, followed by the Haigis formula 0.76(0.34, 1.26)D, and the Holladay 1(D-K)formula had the largest 1.01(0.49, 1.62)D. The percentages of affected eyes with AE ≤0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 2.0D for the Barrett True-K formula were 48%, 59%, 69%, and 93%, which were equal to or higher than the other two formulas.CONCLUSION: The Barrett True-K formula is more recommended among the three formulas for cataract patients after RK and with axial length longer than 28 mm.

Glaucoma and cataracts are the leading causes of blindness, and surgery is an important treatment option. Patients with glaucoma have clinical characteristics such as high intraocular pressure, shallow anterior chamber and short axial length, and the ocular structure is often altered after anti-glaucoma surgery like trabeculectomy. These changes also lead to differences in the accuracy of intraocular lens(IOL)refractive calculation between cataract surgery after anti-glaucoma surgery or combined glaucoma and cataract surgery and alone cataract surgery. Meanwhile glaucoma patients' individual clinical characteristics and structural changes caused by anti-glaucoma surgery have shown differences in the impact on the predictive accuracy of IOL diopters and the type of refractive drift. This article reviews the latest research advances in the causes of refractive error(RE), the characteristics of refractive drift, and the selection of the most appropriate IOL formula for glaucoma patients undergoing cataract surgery or cataract surgery after anti-glaucoma surgery or combined glaucoma and cataract surgery.

Purpose: To investigate the characteristics of eyes with large variations in predicted refraction using four traditional intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and evaluate the accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas. Methods: Eyes that had variation in predicted refraction (≥ 0.75 D) using four traditional formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formulas) were included. Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), average keratometry (AK), and the ratio of axial length to corneal radius (AL/CR) were measured. New-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS formulas) and traditional formulas were compared. The median absolute error (MedAE) was the main parameter to evaluate the accuracy of formulas. Results: A total of 79 participants (79 eyes) who had variation in predicted refraction of (≥ 0.75 D) using four traditional formulas out of 510 eyes (510 patients) underwent uncomplicated cataract surgeries. The Barrett Universal II (0.29 D), EVO 2.0 (0.31 D), Kane (0.30 D), and Pearl-DGS (0.33 D) formulas produced significantly lower median absolute errors (MedAEs) than the Hoffer Q (0.61 D) and Holladay 1 (0.59 D) formulas (P < 0.01). The Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment significantly improved the accuracy of the Holladay 1 formula in long eyes (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Abnormal AL, ACD, and AK are more likely to lead to prediction errors using traditional formulas. New-generation formulas and traditional formulas with WK adjustment showed satisfactory prediction accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Daiki Sakai,1– 3 Sakiko Demoto,1,2 Yukako Iwai,1,2 Yasuhiko Hirami,1,2 Makoto Nakamura,3 Yasuo Kurimoto1,2 1Department of Ophthalmology, Kobe City Eye Hospital, Kobe, Japan; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital, Kobe, Japan; 3Department of Surgery, Division of Ophthalmology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe, JapanCorrespondence: Daiki Sakai, Department of Ophthalmology, Kobe City Eye Hospital, 2-1-8 Minatojima Minamimachi, Chuo-ku, Kobe-shi, Hyogo, 650-0047, Japan, Tel +81-78-381-9876, Fax +81-78-381-9910, Email dsakai1027@gmail.comPurpose: To compare the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) for predicting postoperative refraction between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets.Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with axial myopia (axial length ≥ 25.0 mm) who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery with IA to achieve emmetropia (plano to − 0.5 D) or intentional myopia (− 2.5 D to − 5.0 D). Preoperative ocular biometry was performed in all eyes using an IOLMaster. Refractive prediction errors in IA were compared between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets. Refractive prediction errors in IA for both groups were also compared with those predicted by intraocular lens power calculation formulas including the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas.Results: Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients with a target of emmetropia and 22 eyes of 22 patients with a target of intentional myopia were included in the final analysis. The mean numerical error was significantly different from zero (myopic trend) in myopia-targeted eyes (− 0.37 ± 0.54 D, one-sample t-test, P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval: − 0.61 to − 0.14), while it was close to zero in emmetropia-targeted eyes. The mean absolute error was significantly smaller in emmetropia-targeted eyes (0.28 ± 0.27 D) than in myopia-targeted eyes (0.51 ± 0.41 D, P = 0.01). IA was revealed as the most accurate method for predicting postoperative refraction in eyes with emmetropia target, whereas Barrett Universal II formula was found to be the most accurate for eyes with myopia target.Conclusion: In patients with axial myopia, the performance of IA was altered when targeting intentional myopia compared with emmetropia. Myopic shift in the refractive outcome should be considered when IA is used to target myopia.Keywords: cataract surgery, postoperative refraction, intentional myopia, axial myopia, intraocular lens calculation formula