Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with variations in predicted refraction

Qian, Shuyi; Wang, Yalan; Li, Siyan; Yang, Fuman; Hu, Yiwen; Liu, Zhuohan; Zhao, Ying‐Zheng

doi:10.1007/s00417-022-05748-w

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, their study defined extreme myopia as AL ≥ 30.0 mm, while the current study only had four patients that fit this criterion. However, Fuest et al in Germany looked at eyes with long axial lengths and compared the BU-II and Hill-RBF 2.0 with Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas and found that the BU-II and Hill-RBF 2.0 performed better than the Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas, which was consistent with other studies, including studies consisting of Asian populations [ 1 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ]. Our data support previous reports that the BU-II and Hill-RBF perform more accurately than Holladay 1 and SRK/T in long eyes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

Moshirfar

Durnford

Jensen

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang–Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

Moshirfar

Durnford

Jensen

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4,[7][8][9][10] Additional ocular factors, such as corneal curvature, anterior chamber depth (measured from the epithelium to the lens), and lens thickness, may also account for the commonly observed bias. [11][12][13][14][15] Higher keratometry (K) values of the steep cornea may push the effective lens position more posteriorly, thus increasing the prediction error (PE) of traditional formulas that use K value to predict the effective lens position. 16,17 Jin et al and Gonzalez et al observed that flat corneas show some refractive compensation for a long AL, but that this compensation will be lost when AL is >28 mm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mo,

Feng,

et al. 2023

J Cataract Refract Surg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate the effect of corneal curvature (K) on the accuracy of 8 IOL 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 ≤ 43D) and steep K (K > 45D) 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 ≤ 45D). When 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.

show abstract

“…FullMonte is no longer operational [7], and Karmona [24], Hoffer QST [25], and Nallasamy were first published recently [27]. Among these four frequently published IOL power formulas, most peer-reviewed papers have considered two or three of them [7,22,30,32,43,47,48], and only two studies have included all four [2,12]. Table 4 shows precise data from selected articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence

Stopyra,

Cooke,

Grzybowski

2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The proper selection of an intraocular lens power calculation formula is an essential aspect of cataract surgery. This study evaluated the accuracy of artificial intelligence-based formulas. Design: Systematic review. Methods: This review comprises articles evaluating the exactness of artificial intelligence-based formulas published from 2017 to July 2023. The papers were identified by a literature search of various databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Crossref, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SciELO) using the terms “IOL formulas”, “FullMonte”, “Ladas”, “Hill-RBF”, “PEARL-DGS”, “Kane”, “Karmona”, “Hoffer QST”, and “Nallasamy”. In total, 25 peer-reviewed articles in English with the maximum sample and the largest number of compared formulas were examined. Results: The scores of the mean absolute error and percentage of patients within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to estimate the exactness of the formulas. In most studies the Kane formula obtained the smallest mean absolute error and the highest percentage of patients within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D. Second place was typically achieved by the PEARL DGS formula. The limitations of the studies were also discussed. Conclusions: Kane seems to be the most accurate artificial intelligence-based formula. PEARL DGS also gives very good results. Hoffer QST, Karmona, and Nallasamy are the newest, and need further evaluation.

show abstract

Accuracy of new-generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with variations in predicted refraction

Cited by 8 publications

References 27 publications

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

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

A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About