Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas

Abstract

Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest prediction error for the 2 IOL models studied.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…14,17,31 We also performed the meta-analysis on the comparison of Olsen formula with Barrett Universal II and Haigis. 14,17,31 We also performed the meta-analysis on the comparison of Olsen formula with Barrett Universal II and Haigis.…”

“…The newly developed Olsen formula showed potential advantages in predicting IOL power in eyes with long AL. 14,17,31 We also performed the meta-analysis on the comparison of Olsen formula with Barrett Universal II and Haigis. The results of the analysis showed that no statistical difference was observed in the comparison between Olsen and Barrett Universal II (Appendix A, I 2 = 0%, mean difference = 0.00D, P = 0.86), and between Olsen and Haigis (Appendix B, I 2 = 0%, mean difference = −0.02D, P = 0.14).…”

“…In total, there were 4074 eyes enrolled in the 11 included studies (Table 1). 8,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][25][26][27] The sample size ranged from 24 to 1549 eyes. Most of the studies (n = 9) included patients undergoing cataract surgeries, one trial included patients undergoing refractive lens exchange and one trial included patients with unclear intervention.…”

“…Therefore, the selection of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula to achieve the desired post-operative refraction has become increasingly imperative. 8, 17 Terzi 18 suggested that Haigis was significantly more precise than Hoffer Q and Holladay 2. The inaccuracy of the IOL power calculation in long eyes is mainly due to the lack of precise measurement of AL and corneal power, poor post-operative anterior chamber depth prediction, 10 and improper selection of IOL power calculation formula.…”

“…[13][14][15][16] More recent studies revealed that formulas including Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, were more accurate. 8,17 Terzi 18 suggested that Haigis was significantly more precise than Hoffer Q and Holladay 2. Roessler 9 indicated that Haigis performed better than Holladay 1 and SRK/T.…”