Extended depth of focus IOL in eyes with different axial myopia and targeted refraction.

AIM: To evaluate the objective visual outcomes following implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOL) in individuals with varying axial lengths (AL) and targeted refraction. METHODS: This retrospective study comprised age-matched eyes that underwent implantation of the EDOF IOL. Eyes were categorized based on AL into groups: control group with AL < 26 mm; high myopia group with AL ≥ 26 mm. Each group was then subdivided based on postoperative spherical equivalent (SE). Follow-up at three months included assessment of uncorrected visual acuity at different distances, contrast sensitivity (CS), refractive outcomes, and spectacle independence. RESULTS: Overall, this study included 100 eyes from 100 patients, comprising 50 males (50.00%) and 50 females (50.00%), with 20 eyes in each group. In the control group, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) at 5 and 3 m (m) in the - 1.50 to -0.75 group was inferior to that of the - 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.004). Conversely, the uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 33 cm in the - 1.50 to -0.75 group was superior to that of the - 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.005). Within the high myopia group, the UDVA at 5 and 3 m in the - 2.25 to -1.50 group was worse than in the - 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.009 and 0.008, respectively). However, the UNVA at 33 cm in the - 2.25 to -1.50 group was better than in the - 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.020). No significant differences were observed among the groups for corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) (P > 0.05). Additionally, in the high myopia group, the CS of the - 2.25 to -1.50 group was lower compared to that of the - 0.75 to 0.00 group (P = 0.017). Among high myopia patients, 90.00% with refraction ranging from - 1.50 to -0.75 reported achieving overall spectacle independence. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of extended depth of focus intraocular lenses (IOLs) yields satisfactory visual and refractive outcomes in eyes with axial myopia. Among high myopia patients, a refraction ranging from - 1.50 to -0.75 diopters achieves superior visual quality compared to other postoperative myopic diopters.

A retrospective study of cumulative absolute reduction in axial length after photobiomodulation therapy.

BACKGROUND: To assess the age and timeline distribution of ocular axial length shortening among myopic children treated with photobiomodulation therapy in the real world situations. METHODS: Retrospective study of photobiomodulation therapy in Chinese children aged 4 to 13 years old where axial length measurements were recorded and assessed to determine effectiveness at two age groups (4 ∼ 8 years old group and 9 ∼ 13 years old group). Data was collected from myopic children who received photobiomodulation therapy for 6 ∼ 12 months. Effectiveness of myopia control was defined as any follow-up axial length ≤ baseline axial length, confirming a reduction in axial length. Independent t-test was used to compare the effectiveness of the younger group and the older group with SPSS 22.0. RESULTS: 342 myopic children were included with mean age 8.64 ± 2.20 years and baseline mean axial length of 24.41 ± 1.17 mm. There were 85.40%, 46.30%, 71.20% and 58.30% children with axial length shortening recorded at follow-up for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months, respectively. With respect to the axial length shortened eyes, the mean axial length difference (standard deviation) was - 0.039 (0.11) mm, -0.032 (0.11) mm, -0.037 (0.12) mm, -0.028 (0.57) mm at 1, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up, respectively. Greater AL shortening was observed among the older group who had longer baseline axial lengths than the younger group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall myopia control effectiveness using photobiomodulation therapy was shown to be age and time related, with the maximum absolute reduction in axial elongation being cumulative.

The effect of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 IOL power formulas.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of corneal power on the accuracy of 14 newer intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in cataract surgery. The aim is to assess how these formulas perform across different corneal curvature ranges, thereby guiding more precise IOL selection. METHODS: In this retrospective case series, 336 eyes from 336 patients who underwent cataract surgery were studied. The cohort was divided into three groups according to preoperative corneal power. Key metrics analyzed included mean prediction error (PE), standard deviation of PE (SD), mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.25 D, 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D and ± 2.00 D. RESULTS: In the flat K group (Km < 43 D), VRF-G, Emmetropia Verifying Optical Version 2.0 (EVO2.0), Kane, and Hoffer QST demonstrated lower SDs (± 0.373D, ± 0.379D, ± 0.380D, ± 0.418D, respectively) compared to the VRF formula (all P < 0.05). EVO2.0 and K6 showed significantly different SDs compared to Barrett Universal II (BUII) (all P < 0.02). In the medium K group (43 D ≤ Km < 46 D), VRF-G, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS recorded lower MAEs (0.307D to 0.320D) than Olsen (OLCR) and Castrop (all P < 0.03), with RBF3.0 having the second lowest MAE (0.309D), significantly lower than VRF and Olsen (OLCR) (all P < 0.05). In the steep K group (Km ≥ 46D), RBF3.0, K6, and Kane achieved significantly lower MAEs (0.279D, 0.290D, 0.291D, respectively) than Castrop (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the varying accuracy of newer IOL formulas based on corneal power. VRF-G, EVO2.0, Kane, K6, and Hoffer QST are highly accurate for flat corneas, while VRF-G, RBF3.0, BUII, Karmona, K6, EVO2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS are recommended for medium K corneas. In steep corneas, RBF3.0, K6, and Kane show superior performance.

Effect of capsular tension ring on the refractive outcomes of patients with extreme high axial myopia after phacoemulsification.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the effect of capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation following cataract surgery on the refractive outcomes of patients with extreme high axial myopia. METHODS: Sixty eyes (with an axial length of ≥26 mm) were retrospectively reviewed and classified into two groups: CTR group (n = 30), which underwent CTR implantation following phacoemulsification, and control group (n = 30), which did not undergo CTR implantation. Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation was performed using Barrett Universal II (UII), Haigis, and SRK/T formulas. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated by subtracting the postoperative refraction from predicted refraction. The mean PE (MPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes that had a PE of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, or ±2.00 diopters (D) were calculated and compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in PE between the two groups. The Barrett UII formula revealed a lower AE in the CTR group than in the control group (p = 0.015) and a lower AE than the other two formulas (p = 0.0000) in both groups. The Barrett UII formula achieved the highest percentage of eyes with a PE of ±0.25 D (66.67%). CONCLUSIONS: The refractive outcomes were more accurate in eyes with CTR implantation than in those with routine phacoemulsification based on the Barrett UII formula. The Barrett UII formula was recommended as the appropriate formula when planning CTR implantation in high myopia.

Refractive outcomes of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery in eyes with long and short axial lengths.

PURPOSE: To report the refractive outcomes of long (≥25.00 mm) and short (≤22.00 mm) axial length (AL) eyes undergoing immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent ISBCS were identified and eyes of patients with bilateral long and short ALs were included. Pre- and postoperative biometry, autorefraction, and ocular comorbidities or complications were recorded. The primary outcome was the mean refractive prediction error. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (74 eyes) with long ALs and 18 patients (36 eyes) with short ALs were included. The means ± standard deviations of the ALs were 26.40 ± 1.38 mm and 21.44 ± 0.46 mm in the long and short AL groups, respectively. In long AL eyes, the mean absolute error from the biometry-predicted refraction was - 0.16 ± 0.46 D, corresponding to 74% of eyes achieving a refraction within ±0.50 D of the predicted value. In short AL eyes, the mean absolute error was - 0.63 ± 0.73 D, corresponding to 44% of eyes achieving a refraction within ±0.50 D of the predicted value. Eight (44.4%) patients with short AL eyes had a myopic deviation greater than ±0.50 D from the predicted result in both eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients with long AL eyes, ISBCS in patients with short ALs had a wider variance in refractive outcome and a lower rate of achieving a postoperative refraction within ±0.50 D of the predicted target.

Association of refractive outcome with postoperative anterior chamber depth measured with 3 optical biometers.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the relationship between refractive outcomes and postoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD, measured from corneal epithelium to lens) measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), and Scheimpflug devices under the undilated pupil. METHODS: Patients undergoing cataract phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in a hospital setting were enrolled. Postoperative ACD (postACD) was performed with an SS-OCT device, an OLCR device, and a Scheimpflug device at least 1 month after cataract surgery. After adjusting the mean predicted error to 0, differences in refractive outcomes were calculated with the Olsen formula using actual postACD measured from 3 devices and predicted value. RESULTS: Overall, this comparative case study included 69 eyes of 69 patients, and postACD measurements were successfully taken using all 3 devices. The postACD measured with the SS-OCT, OLCR, and Scheimpflug devices was 4.59 ± 0.30, 4.50 ± 0.30, and 4.54 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. Statistically significant differences in postACD were found among 3 devices (P < 0.001), with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman showing good agreement. No significant difference in median absolute error was found with the Olsen formula using actual postACD obtained with 3 devices. Percentage prediction errors were within ± 0.50 D in 65% (OLCR), 70% (Scheimpflug), and 67% (SS-OCT) calculated by actual postACD versus 64% by predicted value. CONCLUSION: Substantial agreement was found in postACD measurements obtained from the SS-OCT, OLCR, and Scheimpflug devices, with a trend toward comparable refractive outcomes in the Olsen formula. Meanwhile, postACD measurements may be potentially superior for the additional enhancement of refractive outcomes.

Repeatability of biometric measures from the IOLMaster 700 in a cataractous population.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the repeatability of biometric measures and also to assess the interactions between the uncertainties in these measures for use in an error propagation model, using data from a large patient cohort. METHODS: In this cross-sectional non-randomised study we evaluated a dataset containing 3379 IOLMaster 700 biometric measurements taken prior to cataract surgery. Only complete scans with at least 3 successful measurements for each eye performed on the same day were considered. The mean (Mean) and standard deviations (SD) for each sequence of measurements were derived and analysed. Correlations between the uncertainties were assessed using Spearman rank correlations. RESULTS: In the dataset with 677 eyes matching the inclusion criteria, the within subject standard deviation and repeatability for all parameters match previously published data. The SD of the axial length (AL) increased with the Mean AL, but there was no noticeable dependency of the SD of any of the other parameters on their corresponding Mean value. The SDs of the parameters are not independent of one another, and in particular we observe correlations between those for AL, anterior chamber depth, aqueous depth, lens thickness and corneal thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The SD change over Mean for AL measurement and the correlations between the uncertainties of several biometric parameters mean that a simple Gaussian error propagation model cannot be used to derive the effect of biometric uncertainties on the predicted intraocular lens power and refraction after cataract surgery.

Impact of segmented optical axial length on the performance of intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

PURPOSE: To investigate the difference between the segmented axial length (AL) and the composite AL on a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and to evaluate the subsequent effects on artificial intelligence intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations: the Kane and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas compared with established vergence formulas. SETTING: National Hospital Organization, Tokyo Medical Center, Japan. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing cataract surgery with a single-piece IOL were reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T formulas based on 2 ALs were compared for each formula. The heteroscedastic test was used with the SD of prediction errors as the endpoint for formula performance. RESULTS: The study included 145 eyes of 145 patients. The segmented AL (24.83 ± 1.89) was significantly shorter than the composite AL (24.88 ± 1.96, P < .001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a negative proportional bias for the differences between the segmented AL and the composite AL. The SD values obtained by Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas based on the segmented AL (0.52 diopters [D], 0.54 D, and 0.50 D, respectively) were significantly lower than those based on the composite AL (0.57 D, 0.60 D, and 0.52 D, respectively, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The segmented ALs were longer in short eyes and shorter in long eyes than the composite ALs. The refractive accuracy can be improved in the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas by changing the composite ALs to the segmented ALs.

Parapapillary drusen of the retinal pigment epithelium.

PURPOSE: To describe the occurrence, morphology and associations of parapapillary drusen of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE-drusen). METHODS: Using light microscopy, we histomorphometrically examined enucleated human eyes. RESULTS: The study included 83 eyes (axial length: 25.9 ± 3.2 mm; range: 20.0-35.0 mm). Eyes with parapapillary RPE-drusen (n = 29 (35%) eyes) as compared to those without drusen had a significantly shorter axial length (24.0 ± 1.8 mm vs 27.0 ± 3.3 mm; p < 0.001), higher prevalence (27/29 vs 12/54; p < 0.001) and longer width (213 ± 125 µm vs 96 ± 282 µm; p < 0.0001) of parapapillary alpha zone, and thicker BM in parapapillary beta zone (8.4 ± 2.7 µm vs 3.9 ± 2.0 µm; p < 0.001) and alpha zone (6.6 ± 3.9 µm vs 4.4 ± 1.5 µm; p = 0.02). Prevalence of parapapillary RPE-drusen was 27 (69%) out of 39 eyes with alpha zone. Beneath the RPE-drusen and in total alpha zone, choriocapillaris was open, while it was closed in the central part of parapapillary beta zone. BM thickness was thicker (p = 0.001) in alpha zone than beta zone, where it was thicker (p < 0.001) than in the region outside of alpha/beta zone. BM thickness outside of alpha/beta zone was not correlated with prevalence of parapapillary RPE-drusen (p = 0.47) or axial length (p = 0.31). RPE cell density was higher in alpha zone than in the region adjacent to alpha zone (22.7 ± 7.3 cells/240 µm vs 18.3 ± 4.1 cells/240 µm; p < 0.001). In the parapapillary RPE-drusen, RPE cells were connected with a PAS-positive basal membrane. CONCLUSIONS: Parapapillary RPE-drusen as fibrous pseudo-metaplasia of the RPE were associated with shorter axial length, higher prevalence and larger size of alpha zone, and thicker BM in alpha zone and beta zone. The RPE-drusen may be helpful to differentiate glaucomatous parapapillary beta zone from myopic beta zone.

Limitations of constant optimization with disclosed intraocular lens power formulae.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of formula constants on predicted refraction and limitations of constant optimization for classical and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae. SETTING: Tertiary care center. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center consecutive case series. METHODS: This analysis is based on a dataset of 888 eyes before and after cataract surgery with IOL implantation (Hoya Vivinex). Spherical equivalent refraction predSEQ was predicted using IOLMaster 700 data, IOL power, and formula constants from IOLCon ( https://iolcon.org ). The formula prediction error (PE) was derived as predSEQ minus achieved spherical equivalent refraction for the SRKT, Hoffer Q, Holladay, Haigis, and Castrop formulae. The gradient of predSEQ (gradSEQ) as a measure for the effect of the constants on refraction was calculated and used for constant optimization. RESULTS: Using initial formula constants, the mean PE was -0.1782 ± 0.4450, -0.1814 ± 0.4159, -0.1702 ± 0.4207, -0.1211 ± 0.3740, and -0.1912 ± 0.3449 diopters (D) for the SRKT, Hoffer Q, Holladay, Haigis, and Castrop formulas, respectively. gradSEQ for all formula constants (except gradSEQ for the Castrop R) decay with axial length because of interaction with the effective lens position (ELP). Constant optimization for a zero mean PE (SD: 0.4410, 0.4307, 0.4272, 0.3742, 0.3436 D) results in a change in the PE trend over axial length in all formulae where the constant acts directly on the ELP. CONCLUSIONS: With IOL power calculation formulae where the constant(s) act directly on the ELP, a change in constant(s) always changes the trend of the PE according to gradSEQ. Formulae where at least 1 constant does not act on the ELP have more flexibility to zero the mean or median PE without coupling with a PE trend error over axial length.

Evaluation of a New All-in-One Optical Biometer and Comparison With a Validated Swept-source OCT Biometer.

PURPOSE: To assess agreement between a new all-in-one non-contact optical biometer based on optical low coherence reflectometry (SW-9000 µm Plus; Suoer) and a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (OA-2000; Tomey). METHODS: Each eye was scanned three times in a row by each device at random. The measured ocular parameters included central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL), flat keratometry (Kf), steep keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism, corneal diameter (CD), and pupil diameter (PD). The paired t test was used to show the differences between the SW-9000 and OA-2000. Bland-Altman plots and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were applied to assess the consistency of the measurements. RESULTS: Sixty eyes from 60 healthy participants were examined, with a mean spherical equivalent refraction of -5.58 ± 2.31 diopters and a mean age of 30.40 ± 6.07 years. The Bland-Altman plots showed high agreement for AL, ACD, LT, Kf, Ks, Km, astigmatism, and CD measurements (95% LoA: -0.06 to 0.04 mm, -0.10 to 0.06 mm, -0.12 to 0.11 mm, -0.30 to 0.29 D, -0.35 to 0.38 D, -0.29 to 0.30 D, -0.30 to 0.34 D, and -0.50 to 0.06 mm, respectively), whereas the agreement for CCT and PD were moderate (95% LoA: 7.12 to 20.43 µm, -0.75 to 1.19 mm, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The new all-in-one non-contact biometer had high agreement with the OA-2000 biometer on the AL, ACD, LT, Kf, Ks, Km, astigmatism, and CD measurements. For most of the ocular parameters assessed, they were clinically interchangeable. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):825-830.].

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack.

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.

Accuracy of Seven Modern Online IOL Formulas in Eyes With Axial Lengths Longer Than 30 mm.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of newer online intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in extremely elongated eyes (axial length > 30 mm). METHODS: This retrospective case series study included 236 patients (236 eyes). Postoperative refractive outcomes of the Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer QST (HQST), Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in the extreme myopia group 1 (30 < axial length ≤ 32 mm), extreme myopia group 2 (32 < axial length ≤ 35 mm), and meniscus IOL group. The root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters (D) were calculated for statistical analysis. RESULTS: For the extreme myopia group 1, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest RMSAE (0.361) and EVO 2.0 showed the highest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (85.06%). For the extreme myopia group 2, the RMSAE of the K6 (0.442) and EVO 2.0 (0.475) was significantly lower than the BU II (0.610), Kane (0.641), and HQST (0.759, P ≤ .016) formulas. In the meniscus IOL group, the K6 formula showed the lowest RMSAE (0.402) and the highest percentage within ±0.50 diopters (84.31%). CONCLUSIONS: The EVO 2.0 and K6 formulas are recommended for IOL power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia. Modern artificial intelligence-based formulas should be used cautiously when the axial length is longer than 32 mm or meniscus IOLs are implanted. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):705-710.].

Efficacy of corneal curvature on the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 302 highly myopic eyes.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of corneal curvature (K) on the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens formulas in highly myopic eyes. SETTING: Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: 302 eyes (302 patients) were analyzed in subgroups based on the K value. The mean refractive error, mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.00 D were statistical analyzed. RESULTS: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 had the lower MAE (≤0.28) and RMSAE (≤0.348) and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (≥83.58%) in the flat (K ≤ 43 D) and steep K (K > 45 D) groups. Hoffer QST had the lowest MedAE (0.19), RMSAE (0.351) and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (82.98%) in the normal K group (43 < K ≤ 45 D). When axial length (AL) ≤28 mm, all formulas showed close RMSAE values (0.322 to 0.373) in flat K group. When AL >28 mm, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest MAE (≤0.24), MedAE (≤0.17) and RMSAE (≤0.337) across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: EVO 2.0, Kane, and RBF 3.0 were the most accurate in highly myopic eyes with a flat or steep K. Hoffer QST is recommended for long eyes with normal K values. RBF 3.0 showed the highest accuracy when AL >28 mm, independent of corneal curvature.

Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade.

PURPOSE: To investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy. METHODS: This retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm). RESULTS: The ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.