Accuracy of minus power intraocular lens calculation using OKULIX ray tracing software

Nabil, Karim Mahmoud

doi:10.1007/s10792-018-1007-y

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The percentage of eyes within a PE of ± 0.50 and the MAEs of Sirius RT were similar to those found by other authors using Okulix RT software (MAE: 0.42 D and 63.5% with a PE of ± 0.50). 25 Likewise, the results of the MAEs in the current series were better than those found by Haiying et al using the Zemax RT software. 28 However, the results of Sirius RT were worse than those reported with the Olsen RT formula.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intraocular lens power calculation in virgin eyes: Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula and a Ray tracing software

Fernández-Rosés

Lamarca

Piñero

et al. 2021

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the accuracy of Sirius ray tracing software with the Barrett Universal II formula for intraocular lens power prediction in virgin eyes. Methods Retrospective case series including 86 eyes that have undergone uneventful cataract surgery with SN60WF implantation. The median absolute error, mean prediction error, variance, and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D of the prediction error in refraction were calculated. The correlation of prediction error with different baseline parameters was investigated. Results No differences were found between the median absolute error of the Barrett Universal II formula (0.226 D) and the ray tracing software with different intraocular lens centerings; apex (0.331 D), limbus (0.345 D), and pupil (0.342 D) ( p = 0.084). The variance, from lowest to highest, was the Barrett Universal II (0.144 D2), ray tracing-limbus (0.285 D2), ray tracing-pupil (0.285 D2), and ray tracing-apex (0.287 D2) ( p = 0.027). The Barrett Universal II formula showed a higher percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D (56.98%), ± 0.50 D (82.56%), and ± 0.75 D (93.02%) compared to ray tracing software ( p < 0.01). A significant correlation between the prediction error of the Barrett Universal II formula and corneal diameter (r = 0.322, p = 0.002) and pupil diameter (r = 0.230, p = 0.033) was found. Also, a positive correlation between the prediction error of Sirius ray tracing and axial length ( p < 0.001) and pupil diameter ( p = 0.01) was found. Conclusion There is a trend of the Barrett Universal II formula to be more accurate than Sirius ray tracing software for intraocular lens power calculation in virgin eyes. This should be confirmed in future prospective comparative studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

“…This bias has been previously documented by other authors analyzing the PE of several vergence formulas and RT software. 24,25 This error may be improved using segmented AL or other formulas modifying the AL. 26,27 Another option is that proposed by Fernández et al by estimating a fictitious corneal refractive index.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraocular lens power calculation in virgin eyes: Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula and a Ray tracing software

Fernández-Rosés

Lamarca

Piñero

et al. 2021

European Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The minimum required sample size was calculated based on the study by Nabil 8 in which the mean absolute error for eyes with axial length >26.5 mm using Okulix software was calculated as 0.45 ± 0.40. Therefore, 62 eyes were calculated as the minimum required sample size by considering the 95% confidence level, an acceptable error rate of 0.1, and the value 0.40 as the standard deviation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They observed that in 81% of subjects, the results of the spherical component were within the range of ±1.00 D, and in 54.1% of people, they were in ±0.50 D; 14. 13 Moreover, Nabil observed that in high myopic eyes (axial length > 26.5 mm) in which the power of the IOL was calculated by Okulix software, 88.33% of subjects had the mean absolute error < +1.00, and in 70% of patients, the postoperative spherical refraction was in ±0.50 D. 8 The percentage of eyes achieving refractive results within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D in comparison with other mentioned studies shows the acceptable performance of the Okulix software in IOL power calculations in long eyes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Accuracy of Okulix Ray-Tracing Software in Calculating Intraocular Lens Power in the Long Cataractous Eyes

Jamali

Jabbarvand

Asharlous

et al. 2022

Journal of Current Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of Okulix ray-tracing software in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in the long cataractous eyes and comparing the results with those obtained from Kane, Holladay 1 with optimized constant, SRK/T with optimized constant, Haigis with optimized constant, and Barret Universal 2 formulas. Methods: The present study evaluates the refractive results of cataract surgery in 85 eyes with axial length > 25 mm and no history of ocular surgery and corneal pathology. IOL power calculation was performed using the Okulix software. The performances of Okulix software in comparison with the five other formulas were evaluated by predicted error, mean absolute error, and mean numerical error 6 months after surgery. Results: The mean calculated IOL power by the Okulix software was +13.48 ± 4.19 diopter (D). The mean of the 6-month postoperative sphere and spherical equivalent were +0.18 ± 0.63 and -0.34 ± 0.78 D, respectively. Also, the 6-month spherical equivalent in 56.6% and 80% of eyes were within ±0.05 and ±1.00 D, respectively. The predicted error (P < 0.001) and the mean numerical error (P < 0.001) were different between the six studied methods; however, we were not able to find any significant differences in the mean absolute error among six studied methods (P: 0.211). Conclusion: The present study showed acceptable performance of the Okulix software in IOL power calculation in long eyes in comparison with the other five methods based on the postoperative refractive error, calculated mean absolute error, and mean numerical error.

show abstract

Calculation of IOL Optical Power Using OKULIX Ray-Tracing Software in Real Clinical Practice

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. Comparative analysis of the accuracy of IOL optical power calculation using different biometric devices.Patients and methods. The study included 30 patients (30 eyes) after monolateral implantation of different monofocal and multifocal IOL models with a mean follow-up of 3.0 ± 0.2 (3–4) months. The mean age was 63.5 ± 6.5 (48–84) years. In all cases, IOL implantation was preceded by cataract phacoemulsification or refractive lensectomy. For all patients, IOL optic power, axial length and keratometry data were obtained using IOLMaster 500, Pentacam HR, and Pentacam AXL+OKULIX devices. Clareon, IQ Vivity, Hoya 250/251, and XY1-SP Vivinex IOLs were implanted.Results. The mean optical power for all implanted IOLs was +21.38 ± 3.50 D, range of values was +10.0 to +29.0 D. The average values of axial eye length were 23.50 ± 0.90 mm (21.25 to 25.19 mm). The target refractive IOLs optic power calculated with the three biometric systems did not differ significantly and was -0.464 ± 0.120 D, -0.502 ± 0.140 D, and -0.400 ± 0.110 D for IOLMaster, Pentacam, and Pentacam+OKULIX, respectively (p > 0.05). The Pentacam HR and Pentacam AXL+OKULIX had slightly lower MAE values; however, no significant differences were found in calculating IOL optical power for the three devices used (p > 0.05). When comparing the devices under study, significant differences were found for the rate of refractive power within ±0.5 D when using the IOLMaster on the one hand and OKULIX on the other (p < 0.05). The refractive error rate of ±1.0 D using the biometric devices did not differ significantly (p > 0.05).Conclusion. This paper presents the first Russian experience of using OKULIX ray-tracing software in clinical practice to increase the accuracy of optical power calculation of various IOL models. The advantage of Pentacam AXL+OKULIX over the IOLMaster 500 biometer in achieving a target refraction of ±0.5 D is shown.

show abstract

Accuracy of minus power intraocular lens calculation using OKULIX ray tracing software

Abstract: Although OKULIX ray tracing software yielded more accurate minus power intraocular lens calculation in extreme myopia, compared to SRK/T formula, yet it still shows tendency toward hyperopia.

Cited by 6 publications

References 21 publications

Intraocular lens power calculation in virgin eyes: Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula and a Ray tracing software

Intraocular lens power calculation in virgin eyes: Accuracy of the Barrett Universal II formula and a Ray tracing software

Assessing Accuracy of Okulix Ray-Tracing Software in Calculating Intraocular Lens Power in the Long Cataractous Eyes

Calculation of IOL Optical Power Using OKULIX Ray-Tracing Software in Real Clinical Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About