Accuracy of predicted refraction with multifocal intraocular lenses using two biometry measurement devices and multiple intraocular lens power calculation formulas

Reitblat, Olga; Assia, Ehud I.; Kleinmann, Guy; Levy, Adi; Barrett, Graham D.; Abulafia, Adi

doi:10.1111/ceo.12478

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[16] All five formulas achieved above 92% of eyes within ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction, much higher than the 85% suggested by Gale et al [25] Recent studies reported that the Barrett Universal II formula was more accurate and showed the better refractive outcomes than the other formulas. [16,[17][18][19]26] One large population study assessed the Barrett Universal II formula over the entire AL range and showed that this formula had the lowest MAE and SD of the prediction error and a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D, which was congruent with our findings. [18] In our study, the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D compared to the other formulas.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…[8,15,16] The Barrett Universal II formula was recently introduced and its accuracy has been studied, and better refractive outcomes than those of other formulas have been reported. [14,16,[17][18][19] The newly developed IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) adopted SS-OCT technology and recently integrated the latest-generation Barrett IOL power calculation formulas. Therefore, cataract surgeons can automatically apply this formula using this device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. MethodsThe study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. ResultsThere were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. ConclusionsOverall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3) Many research papers studying the accuracy of the predictability of different IOL calculation formulas have been published. 4,5) Most researchers state that Barrett Universal II is one of the most reliable IOL calculation formulas. 4,5) Some studies have analyzed the influence of preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) on PPR in different IOL calculation formulas.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5) Most researchers state that Barrett Universal II is one of the most reliable IOL calculation formulas. 4,5) Some studies have analyzed the influence of preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) on PPR in different IOL calculation formulas. 6,7) They concluded that the influence of preoperative of ACD on PPR varies from formula to formula.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of pupil dilation on the Barrett Universal II (new generation), Haigis (4th generation), and SRK/T (3rd generation) intraocular lens calculation formulas: a retrospective study

Teshigawara

Meguro

Mizuki

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We investigated the effect of pupil dilation on predicted postoperative refraction (PPR) and recommended intraocular lens (IOL) power calculated using three different generations of IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II (Barrett) (new generation), Haigis (4th generation), and SRK/T (3rd generation). Methods: This retrospective study included 150 eyes. All variables were measured and calculated using a ZEISS IOL Master 700. The following variables were measured before and after dilation: anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW). PPR and recommended IOL power were calculated by Barrett, Haigis, and SRK/T IOL calculation formulas. The change in each variable before and after dilation, and correlations between all changes were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Spearman’s rank-order correlation test, respectively. The influence of pupil dilation on recommended IOL power calculated by each formula was also analyzed. Results: The mean absolute change (MAC) in PPR before and after dilation was highest in Barrett, followed by Haigis and SRK/T. Significant differences were found among each MACs (P < 0.0001). Significant changes were observed before and after dilation in ACD and LT (P < 0.0001) but not in WTW. In Barrett and Haigis, there was a significant positive correlation between change in PPR and change in ACD (P < 0.0001) and a negative correlation between change in PPR and change in LT (P < 0.0001). Correlations were strongest in Barret followed by Haigis, especially in LT. Change in PPR in Barrett also demonstrated a significant positive correlation with change in WTW (P = 0.022). The recommended IOL power using Barrett and Haigis changed before and after dilation in 23.3% and 19.3% cases; SRK/T showed no change. Conclusions: In PPR and recommended IOL power, pupil dilation influenced Barrett most strongly, followed by Haigis and SRK/T. Given the stronger correlation between the change in PPR in Barrett and the change in ACD, LT, and WTW, the change of ACD, LT, and WTW is more important to the influence of dilation on Barrett. The influence of dilation on each formula and variable, including ACD, LT, and WTW, is key to improving IOL calculation.

show abstract

“…Published results would suggest that surgeons are, by and large, meeting expectations . Refractive outcomes remain variable based upon differences in surgeon technique and experience, preoperative diagnostic technology and the population cohort . Proposed benchmark outcomes also vary.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Hill‐radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery

Roberts

Hodge

Sutton

et al. 2017

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy of predicted refraction with multifocal intraocular lenses using two biometry measurement devices and multiple intraocular lens power calculation formulas

Abstract: Background: To evaluate the accuracy of predicted refraction using multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) with power calculation based on two biometric devices and multiple IOL power calculation formulas.

Cited by 56 publications

References 24 publications

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

Influence of pupil dilation on the Barrett Universal II (new generation), Haigis (4th generation), and SRK/T (3rd generation) intraocular lens calculation formulas: a retrospective study

Comparison of Hill‐radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About