Refractive predictive errors using Barrett II, Hoffer-Q, and SRKT formulae for pediatric IOL implantation.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett II universal (BU II) formula, Hoffer-Q, and SRKT formulae following lensectomy and IOL implantation in a large pediatric cohort. METHODS: Retrospective study of children who underwent lensectomy and IOL implantation between 2015 and 2023 at Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one eyes of 104 children aged 6.0 ± 3.9 years were included. The mean prediction error (PE) was - 0.08 ± 1.54 diopters (D) with BU II, 0.24 ± 1.46 D with Hoffer-Q, and 0.71 ± 1.92 D with SRKT (P = 0.10). In eyes with axial length (AL) < 22 mm, BU II and Hoffer-Q had a smaller PE than SRKT (P = 0.024). In eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, BU II had a smaller PE than Hoffer-Q (P = 0.048). In children 24 months or older at surgery, BU II had a smaller PE than SRKT and Hoffer-Q (P = 0.012). However, in younger children, no difference was found between the formulae (P = 0.61). For mean k-values ≥ 44.5 D, BU II and Hoffer-Q had a smaller PE than SRKT (P = 0.002). An absolute prediction error < 1.0 D was obtained with BU II in 66% of eyes and SRKT in 35% (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The BU II formula performed well with a small prediction error. No significant difference in PE was detected overall between the formulae. However, only BU II demonstrated a stable prediction error at varying axial lengths, K-readings, and ages. As the biometric parameters of the developing eye change with growth, the BU II formula offers a reliable and stable option for pediatric IOL calculation.

[Evaluation of the accuracy of modern intraocular lens calculation formulas when optical biometry is not possible]. / Otsenka tochnosti sovremennykh formul rascheta intraokulyarnykh linz pri nevozmozhnosti vypolneniya opticheskoi biometrii.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using axial length (AL) data obtained by ultrasound biometry (UBM) compared to the third-generation SRK/T calculator. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 230 patients (267 eyes) with severe lens opacities that prevented optical biometry, who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation. IOL power calculation according to the SRK/T formula was based on AL and anterior chamber depth obtained by UBM (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry on the Topcon KR 8800 autorefractometer. To adapt AL for new generation calculators - Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) - the retinal thickness (0.20 mm) was added to the axial length determined by UBM, and then the optical power of the artificial lens was calculated. The mean error and its modulus value were used as criteria for the accuracy of IOL calculation. RESULTS: A significant difference (p=0.008) in the mean IOL calculation error was found between the formulas. Pairwise analysis revealed differences between SRK/T (-0.32±0.58 D) and other formulas - BUII (-0.16±0.52 D; p=0.014), RBF (-0.17±0.51 D; p=0.024), Kane (-0.17±0.52 D; p=0.029), but not with the LSF calculator (-0.19±0.53 D; p=0.071). No significant differences between the formulas were found in terms of mean error modulus (p=0.238). New generation calculators showed a more frequent success in hitting target refraction (within ±1.00 D in more than 95% of cases) than the SRK/T formula (86%). CONCLUSION: The proposed method of adding 0.20 mm to the AL determined by UBM allows using this parameter in modern IOL calculation formulas and improving the refractive results of PE, especially in eyes with non-standard anterior segment structure.

Modification of the Barrett Universal II formula by the combination of the actual total corneal power and virtual axial length.

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate whether a combination of the total corneal power (TCP) and virtual axial length (AL) based on Gaussian optics makes the refractive prediction accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula better than the conventional anterior keratometry (K) and axial length. METHODS: The TCP and the virtual AL were calculated in two ways: the corneal index strategy and the TK index strategy. The former uses the corneal refractive index n1 as a variable, and the latter uses the TK index nx as a variable. In a dataset of 225 eyes, the calculated TCP and the virtual AL were input into the BUII formula along with the anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and white-to-white measured with the IOLMaster 700, and the refractive prediction accuracy was evaluated by the mean numerical prediction error (MNE), standard deviation (SD), mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), percentages of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ± 0.50 diopter, and IOL formula performance index (FPI). The refractive prediction outcomes also underwent subgroup analyses and were compared with those of the anterior keratometry-based BUII-K of the IOLMaster 700. RESULTS: In the corneal index strategy, the FPI had the highest value at approximately n1 = 1.346. In the TK index strategy, the FPI had the highest value at approximately nx = 1.3858. There was no tendency for the refractive prediction outcomes of the BUII-n1 = 1.346 and the BUII-nx = 1.3858 to be inferior to those of the BUII-K, particularly in the medium range of subgroups. CONCLUSION: The combination of the actual TCP and the virtual AL based on Gaussian optics may lead to a better refractive prediction accuracy of the BUII formula than that of BUII-K.

[Reasonability of accounting for gender in intraocular lens power calculation]. / O tselesoobraznosti ucheta gendernoi prinadlezhnosti pri raschete opticheskoi sily intraokulyarnykh linz.

PURPOSE: The study assesses the influence of gender on the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation by formulas SRK/T, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Ladas super formula (LSF), Hill RBF (RBF) and Kane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled 214 patients (106 men and 108 women) who underwent cataract phacoemulsification (PE). Optical biometry was performed on IOL-Master 500. IOL power calculation was performed either adjusting for gender (formulas SRK/T, BUII, LSF) or without such adjustment (formulas RBF, Kane). Calculation error (CE) was assessed one month after PE by comparing the achieved (autorefractometer Topcon-8800) and target spherical equivalent of refraction. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in mean IOL CE with gender-unspecific formulas (SRK/T, BUII, LSF) and no differences in gender-specific calculators (RBF, Kane). The Kane formula demonstrated the lowest CE between men and women (-0.01±0.43 versus -0.09±0.41 D; p=0.158), while the SRK/T formula had the highest CE (0.02±0.46 versus -0.21±0.44 D, respectively; p<0.001). Presence of a significant correlation between CE and gender was found for all formulas except Kane (R2=0.005, p=0.158). CONCLUSION: Patient's gender has a significant impact on IOL calculation accuracy. Using gender-responsive formulas could help achieve better refractive results with PE. The present study showed Kane formula to have the least CE dependence from gender. However, the CE difference (less than 0.25 D) was lower than the value of division (0.5D) in modern IOL models.

The effect of implantable collamer Lens V4c on ocular biometric measurements and intraocular lens power calculation based on Pentacam-AXL and IOLMaster 500.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the possible effect of implantable collamer lens (ICL) V4c on ocular biometric measurements by a new biometer Pentacam-AXL and partial coherence interferometry (PCI)-based IOLMaster 500 and intraocular lens power calculation using fourth-generation formula. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ICL (EVO-V4c, STAAR Surgical Co. Nidau, Switzerland) implantation surgery from September 2020 to November 2021. The Pentacam-AXL and IOLMaster 500 biometers were used to measure axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), white to white (WTW), and central corneal thickness (CCT) values before and at least 2 months after ICL V4c implantation. The IOL power was calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula. RESULTS: The study included 45 eyes in 28 patients. There was a significant increase in ALs (average 0.03 ± 0.07 mm, p = 0.01) and a significant decrease of ACDs (average 0.19 ± 0.17 mm, p < 0.001) based on Pentacam-AXL. Similar changes in ALs and ACDs were also found in IOLMaster 500. In addition, the difference in WTWs in the two devices and that of CCTs in Pentacam-AXL were statistically significant. However, the preoperative and postoperative K1 and K2 were separately comparable using either device. The IOL power calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula did not change significantly either by the software built in Pentacam-AXL or by manually putting the parameters of the IOLMaster 500 into the formula manually (p = 0.058, p = 0.675, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular parameters including ALs, ACDs, WTWs, and CCTs using a new Pentacam-AXL and standard PCI-based IOLMaster 500 changed significantly before and after the ICL V4c implantation, while IOL power prediction using the Barrett Universal II formula was little affected.

A comparison of SRK/T formula with Hill RBF 2 and Barrett Universal II in the calculation of intraocular lens power.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of SRK/T, Barrett Universal II and Hill radial basis activation function-2 formulas in intraocular lens power calculation using different axial lengths. METHODS: The retrospective study was conducted at the Lahore General Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, and comprised data from June to December 2020 of patients who underwent phacoemulsification with non-toric, monofocal intraocular lens implantation. Data was sorted in 3 groups on the basis of axial length; group 1 22-25mm, group 2>25mm, and group 3 <22mm. Intraocular lens power was calculated using SRK/T with IOL Master, while online calculators were used for Barrett Universal II and Hill radial basis activation function-2 formulas. Data was analysed using SPSS 21. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients, 47(347%) were males and 53(53%) were females. There were 49(49%) diabetics, and 57(57%) were right eyes. There were 77(77%) patients with mean age 62.38±9.5 in group 1, 17(17%) patients with mean age 52.59±12.78 in group 2, and 6(6%) patients with mean age 61.33+7.61 years in group 3. Mean axial length in group 1 was 23.55±0.81mm with anterior chamber depth of 3.1± 0.37mm. In group 2, mean axial length was 27.54±2.8mm, with anterior chamber depth of 3.4±0.15mm. In group 3, mean axial length was 21.74mm, with anterior chamber depth of 3.14±0.44mm. Mean prediction error of SRK/T versus Barrett Universal II was 0.092±0.041D (p=0.078), SRK/T versus Hill radial basis activation function-2 was 0.066±0.037D (p=0.221) and Barrett Universal versus Hill radial basis activation function-2 was -0.025±0.019D (p=0.553). Mean prediction error of group 1 versus group 2 was -0.105±0.14D, group 2 versus group 3 was 0.046±0.216D and group 2 versus group 3 was 0.151±0.243D (p=1.0). In 74% eyes, absolute prediction error was within ±0.5D in group 1, 64% in group 2 and 50% in group 3 for all formulas. CONCLUSIONS: SRK/T formula was found to be as reliable as Barrett Universal II and Hill radial basis activation function-2 in terms of calculating intra ocular lens power for all axial lengths.

[Alternative method of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length]. / Al'ternativnyi sposob rascheta opticheskoi sily intraokulyarnykh linz pri korotkoi perednezadnei osi glaza.

PURPOSE: To develop an alternative method of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and axial length (AL) of less than 22.0 mm using modern formulas Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled 41 patients (41 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE). Ultrasound biometry (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry (Topcon-8800) were used for IOL power calculation by SRK/T and Haigis formulas. To calculate IOL power by Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF formulas, 0.2 mm were added to AL measured with ultrasonography (retinal thickness). One month after PE, spherical equivalent of refraction was compared with target refraction (calculated by the formulas listed above), and based on that a conclusion was made on the accuracy of calculations. RESULTS: Haigis formula was found to be the least accurate (IOL calculation error -0.39±0.79 D). The calculation error in SRK/T (0.04±0.79 D), Barrett Universal II (0.02±0.79 D) and Hill RBF (-0.05±0.73 D) formulas was much lower. However, among them Hill RBF had the lowest spread of the mean absolute IOL calculation error. Pairwise comparison revealed significant difference of mean IOL calculation error by Haigis formula versus the others. There was no significant difference in the following pairs: SRK/T - Barrett Universal II (p=0.855), and SRK/T - Hill RBF (p=0.167), but there was a significant difference (p=0.043) in the Barrett Universal II - Hill RBF pairdue to the tendency for slight hypermetropic calculation error in the former and the inherent slight myopic shift in the latter.. CONCLUSION: The proposed alternative method of IOL power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and short AL using modern formulas (Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF) shows higher accuracy compared to the formulas embedded in ultrasound biometer (SRK/T and Haigis), and can be recommended for use in everyday practice.

[Optimization of intraocular lens power calculation in pseudoexfoliation syndrome]. / Optimizatsiya rascheta intraokulyarnykh linz pri psevdoeksfoliativnom sindrome.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) on the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 243 patients who underwent phacoemulsification (PE); they were divided into the control (no PEX signs, n=131) and study (signs of PEX, n=112) groups. Barrett Universal II formula was used for IOL calculation by optical biometry (IOL-Master 500). Obtained refraction (autorefractometer Topcon-8800) was compared with target refraction to assess IOL calculation accuracy 1 month after PE. RESULTS: Patients with PEX had significantly shallower anterior chamber compared to the control group (2.86±0.43 versus 3.0±0.43 mm, p=0.003) and steeper corneal curvature (44.31±1.5 versus 43.7±2.59 D, p=0.052). There was significant difference in absolute error of IOL calculation between the groups (-0.02±0.45 versus 0.17±0.55 D for control and study groups, respectively, p=0.004). There was no difference in IOL calculation error depending on the implanted IOL models (AcrySof SA60AT and Akreos Adapt AO) in the control group. However, implantation of SA60AT in the study group showed significant difference in IOL calculation error compared with Akreos (0.3±0.57 versus 0.04±0.51 D, p=0.01). Using linear regression, optimized A-constants were suggested for these types of IOLs for patients with PEX (118.83 for SA60AT and 118.44 for Akreos).

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.

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

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the refractive error in patients undergoing combined phacovitrectomy with and without gas tamponade. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 ± 0.16 mm, 0.94 ± 0.12 mm, and 1.07 ± 0.20 mm 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Effect of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula Optimization in the Sum-of-Segments Optical Biometer.

Purpose: We evaluated the effect of optimization of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula SRK/T and Barrett Universal II (BU II) in long eyes (≥26 mm: group L) and short eyes (≤22 mm: group S) using axial length calculated from segmented refractive indices (SRI). Setting: Multicenter study at five sites in Japan. Design: Retrospective observational study. Methods: This study included 461 eyes of 461 patients (mean age 73.8 ± 8.4 years) who underwent cataract surgery. The predicted refractive error (PRE) was compared between the SRI (ARGOS) and the equivalent refractive index (ERI) biometers (IOLMasterTM700). The patients were randomly divided into two groups, a learning group and a validation group. The optimization constants were determined in the learning group, and the optimization constants were subsequently applied to the validation group and compared with the ERI biometer results. Results: Using both SRK/T and BU II, the validation group's PRE using optimization constants for the SRI biometer in group L was significantly smaller than that using the ERI biometer (p<0.001, p<0.01). In group L, the arithmetic PRE of Barrett UII formula with SRI showed a significant improvement after optimization compared to before optimization (p<0.0001). In group S, the arithmetic PRE of SRK/T and Barrett UII formula with SRI showed a significant improvement (p<0.0001, p<0.0001). Conclusion: In long and short eyes, the current study revealed that optimization of the SRK/T and Barrett formula constants for the SRI biometer was beneficial to achieve accurate refractive outcomes after cataract surgery.

Cataract Outcomes Following Scleral Buckle Surgery for Retinal Detachment.

Purpose: To investigate refractive, visual, and safety outcomes of cataract surgery performed after scleral buckling (SB) for retinal detachment (RD). Patients and methods: A chart review at an academic medical center identified eyes with history of SB followed by subsequent cataract extraction between 2010 and 2022. Eyes with less than 3 weeks follow-up, silicone oil at time of biometry measurement, previous cornea surgery, or co-existing pathology impacting refractive outcomes were excluded. Predicted postoperative spherical equivalents (SE) were calculated with the Barrett Universal II (BU2), Kane, and SRK/T formulas for the implanted intraocular lens (IOL), and complications occurring within 1 year of surgery were abstracted. Results: Sixty eyes of 60 patients met criteria for inclusion, and 40 (66.7%) had postoperative refraction recorded. Absolute prediction errors were 0.49, 0.45, and 0.52D with BU2, Kane, and SRK/T, respectively. Actual postoperative refraction was within 0.5 and 1.0 D of predicted in 26 (65.0%) and 36 (90.0%) using BU2, 23 (58%) and 37 (93%) using Kane, and 21 (52.5%) and 36 (90.0%) using SRK/T. In eyes with macula-on RD, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of logMAR 0.301 (≈20/40) and logMAR 0.544 (≈20/70) or better was achieved in 12 (75.0%) and 15 (93.8%) of eyes. For macula-off RD eyes, these proportions were 19 (63.3%) and 24 (80.0%), respectively. Posterior capsular opacification requiring Nd: YAG capsulotomy was the most frequent complication in 30 (56.7%) eyes. Conclusion: Refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SB may be modestly reduced, even when using modern formulas. Nevertheless, cataract surgery in this population results in favorable visual outcomes.

The retina is the part of the eye that is responsible for converting incoming light into a signal that the brain can interpret. A retinal detachment is an emergent condition in which the retina is torn away from its normal position. Scleral buckling is one method of surgically reattaching the retina. Although quite successful, scleral buckling can cause changes to the shape of the eye, and also increases the risk of opacification of the natural lens of the eye, otherwise known as a cataract. The purpose of this study is to investigate the outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with prior scleral buckle surgery. The results show that despite advancements in methods of measuring the shape of the eye, calculating the appropriately powered IOL to implant, and surgical technique, cataract surgery in eyes with prior scleral buckling may result in poorer outcomes compared to eyes with no history of scleral buckling.

Accuracy of Modern and Traditional Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Cataract Surgery.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with that of older formulas, such as SRK/T and Hoffer Q, in pediatric cataract surgery. Methods: This retrospective study included 100 eyes of 100 children who underwent routine cataract surgery with primary IOL implantation in a bag. This study used four IOLMaster 700 integrated formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (BUII). In addition, the following formulas were used: EVO 2.0, Hill RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL DGS, which are available online. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between SRK/T and most other formulas, except for Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, and BUII (p < 0.05). SRK/T yielded the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) of 0.63 D. This was followed by the BUII (0.66 D), Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST (0.68 D). SRK/T also yielded the highest percentage of cases within ± 0.50 D (43% of the cases). For patients aged 2 to 5 years, SRK/T formula yielded statistically significantly better results than all other included formulas (p < 0.05) with MedAE = 0.44 D, 58.33% and 87.50% of the cases were within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.0 D of intended refraction, respectively. Conclusion: The SRK/T formula showed the best IOL power calculation results in pediatric cataract surgery, followed by BUII, Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST. In children aged 2-5 years, the SRK/T formula outperformed all other formulas, followed by the BUII and Hoffer QST formulas. In children older than 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the different formulas (p > 0.05); Hoffer Q and SRK/T showed slightly better MedAE in this age group (5-10 years).

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas-A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated. METHODS: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms "IOL formulas," "Barrett Universal II," "Kane," "Hill-RBF," "Olsen," "PEARL-DGS," "EVO," "Haigis," "SRK/T," and "Hoffer Q." Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered. RESULTS: Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise.

Comparison of the Barrett Universal II formula to previous generation formulae for paediatric cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) five-variable formula to previous generation formulae in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following paediatric cataract extraction. METHODS: Retrospective study of consecutive paediatric patients who underwent uneventful cataract extraction surgery along with in-the-bag IOL implantation between 2012 and 2018 in the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The accuracy of five different IOL formulae, including the BUII, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay I, Hoffer Q and Haigis, was evaluated. Constant optimization was performed for each IOL and for each formula separately. Mean prediction error (PE) and the mean and median absolute PE (APE) were calculated for the five different IOL formulae investigated. RESULTS: Sixty-six eyes of 66 children (59% males) with a median age at surgery of 6.2 years (IQR, 3.2-9.2 years) were included in the study. The mean IOL power that was implanted was 23.3 ± 5.1 D (range; 12.0-39.0 D). Overall, the BUII had a comparable median APE to the Hoffer Q, Holladay I, SRK/T and Haigis formulae (BUII: 0.49D versus 0.48D, 0.61D, 0.74D and 0.58D respectively; p = 0.205). The BUII, together with Hoffer Q, produced better predictability within 0.5D from target refraction compared with the SRK/T formula (BUII:51.5%, Hoffer Q:51.5% versus SRK/T:31.8%, p = 0.002 for both). CONCLUSION: The BUII formula had comparable accuracy to other tested formulae and outperformed the SRK/T formula, when calculating IOL power within the 0.5D range from target refraction in paediatric eyes undergoing cataract surgery with in-the-bag IOL implantation.

Comparative Evaluation of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Children.

Introduction With the advent of newer microsurgical techniques, the results for cataract surgery have become quite promising. An accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is one of the most important factors in optimizing the results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of four IOL power calculation formulas, namely, Barrett Universal II, Holladay 1, SRK/T and Hoffer Q, using optical biometry in children undergoing cataract surgery with primary IOL implantation. Methods This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 60 eyes of 42 children aged 5-16 years with congenital cataract and having undergone uneventful cataract surgery with IOL implantation were included in the study. Eyes were divided into three groups based on the axial length (AL): short (AL <22.00 mm), medium (AL 22-24.50 mm) and medium long (AL 24.50-26.00 mm). Optical biometry was used and the IOL power was calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula. The predicted postoperative refraction with the other three formulas, namely, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q, using the same IOL power was estimated. This was compared with the actual postoperative refraction (spherical equivalent at 12 weeks) to give the absolute prediction error. The mean of all absolute prediction errors gave the mean absolute prediction error (MAE) values for each formula that were then compared. Results The MAE was 0.64 ± 0.73 for Barrett Universal II, 0.7 ± 0.72 for Holladay 1, 0.71 ± 0.65 for Hoffer Q and 0.8 ± 0.75 for SRK/T. Thus, Barrett Universal II had the lowest MAE across the whole group. The difference in the MAEs was not statistically significant. Conclusion Barrett Universal II had the lowest MAE and thus was predictable for the highest number of eyes in our study, although this was not statistically significant (p=0.176).

Quantitative biometric cutoffs for the choice of the intraocular lens power calculation formula for a recently introduced nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze biometry values cutoffs for the choice of the best intraocular lens power calculation formula for AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens. METHODS: The study was designed as interventional case series with 3 months of follow-up. Intraocular lens power calculation formulas included Barrett Universal II and SRK/T. The first was adopted for the intraocular lens power choice. The quantitative analysis focused on the identification of specific biometric cutoffs considering axial length, anterior chamber depth, and corneal powers. We included only the dominant eye in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and eight eyes of 54 patients (23 males; mean age 62 ± 5 years) with no ocular diseases were included. Best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.3 ± 0.2 to 0.0 ± 0.0 logMAR. All the eyes reached spectacles-free far and intermediate visions; a spherical addition of + 1.0D was necessary to adjust near vision. We identified significant quantitative cutoffs based on axial length and anterior chamber depth. Barrett Universal II resulted the best formula for eyes disclosing an axial length >25 mm, whereas SRK/T turned out to be the best choice for the eyes characterized by an anterior chamber depth <2.8 mm. Our analysis disclosed an overall sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.7 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Axial length and anterior chamber depth influence the choice of Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas. Quantitative biometric cutoffs may be useful to discriminate the best formula to be adopted.

Effect of capsular tension ring implantation during phacoemulsification on postoperative refraction.

PURPOSE: To assess refractive outcomes of phacoemulsification (PE) with additional capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 37 eyes of 37 patient who underwent PE with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were divided into 2 groups: study group (n = 18) with CTR co-implantation (inclusion criteria was preoperative irido-phacodonesis) and control group (n = 19) without CTR. Optical biometry (IOL-Master 500) was performed for each patient before PE. Barrett Universal II Formula was used for IOL calculation. IOL power calculation error was assessed by comparing target refraction and final refraction measured by Topcon-8800 autorefractometer 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: Despite almost identical preoperative values in both groups refractive result was different. Patients with CTR co-implantation had more hyperopic IOL power calculation error of 0.41 ± 0.52 D versus 0.04 ± 0.59 D in the control group (p = 0.043). Postoperative spherical equivalent in study group was more hyperopic (-0.40 ± 1.47 D) than in control group (-0.77 ± 1.24), nevertheless, this difference was insignificant (p = 0.166). CONCLUSION: CTR co-implantation in patients with weak zonules and preoperative irido-phacodonesis leads to more hyperopic IOL power calculation error compared with control group.

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

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.

High Agreement between Barrett Universal II Calculations with and without Utilization of Optional Biometry Parameters.

PURPOSE: To examine the contribution of anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white (WTW) measurements to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula. METHODS: Measurements taken with the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss, Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) swept-source biometry of 501 right eyes of 501 consecutive patients undergoing cataract extraction surgery between January 2019 and March 2020 were reviewed. IOL power was calculated using the BUII formula, first through the inclusion of all measured variables and then by using partial biometry data. For each calculation method, the IOL power targeting emmetropia was recorded and compared for the whole cohort and stratified by axial length (AL) of the measured eye. RESULTS: The mean IOL power calculated for the entire cohort using all available parameters was 19.50 ± 5.11 diopters (D). When comparing it to the results obtained by partial biometry data, the mean absolute difference ranged from 0.05 to 0.14 D; p < 0.001. The optional variables (ACD, LT, WTW) had the least effect in long eyes (AL ≥ 26 mm; mean absolute difference ranging from 0.02 to 0.07 D; p < 0.001), while the greatest effect in short eyes (AL ≤ 22 mm; mean absolute difference from 0.10 to 0.21 D; p < 0.001). The percentage of eyes with a mean absolute IOL dioptric power difference more than 0.25 D was the highest (32.0%) among the short AL group when using AL and keratometry values only. CONCLUSIONS: Using partial biometry data, the BUII formula in small eyes (AL ≤ 22 mm) resulted in a clinically significant difference in the calculated IOL power compared to the full biometry data. In contrast, the contribution of the optional parameters to the calculated IOL power was of little clinical importance in eyes with AL longer than 22 mm.