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

Roberts, Timothy V.; Hodge, Chris; Sutton, Gerard; Lawless, Michael

doi:10.1111/ceo.13034

Cited by 84 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary goal of cataract surgery is the improvement of visual acuity. [13][14][15][16] More recent studies revealed that formulas including Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, were more accurate. 4,5 The IOL power calculation formulas are less accurate in long eyes, which is commonly defined as AL longer than 24.5 mm, [6][7][8][9] presenting a great challenge for cataract surgeons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11 Earlier studies suggested SRK/T as the most accurate formula for long eyes, 12 but some studies showed no significant difference in accuracy among the formulas for patients with long AL. [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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Wang

Lin

et al. 2018

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Wang

Lin

et al. 2018

Clinical Exper Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,8 In recent years, several multivariable formulas have become increasingly popular with cataract surgeons, including the Barrett Universal II, Olsen and Hill-RBF formulas. 9 While each of these formulas incorporate unique variables and weigh them differently, ACD is nonetheless an important variable in estimating ELP. 10-12,A Given the inclusion of ACD in each of these multivariable formulas, we sought to determine if pupil dilation has an effect on calculated IOL power based on whether biometry measurements are taken in an undilated state as compared to a post-dilated state.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Pharmacological Dilation on Calculation of Targeted and Ideal IOL Power Using Multivariable Formulas

Simon

Farooq

Zhang

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims To examine the effect of pharmacologic dilation on biometric parameters measured by the Lenstar LS 900, and whether these changes affect the power of the calculated intraocular lens (IOL) using multivariable formulas in an undilated versus pharmacologically dilated state. Methods Prospective study of 98 phakic eyes from 53 patients. Axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and keratometry (K) readings were measured. The first set of measurements was taken prior to dilation. After dilation (pupil diameter ≥6.0mm), a second set of measurements was taken. The Barrett, Olsen, Hill-RBF, Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay I formulas were used to calculate IOL power before and after dilation. Two calculation methods were used: Method A used a commonly available IOL targeted to achieve the lowest myopic spheroequivalent residual refraction (LMP); Method B calculated ideal IOL power for emmetropia (IPE). Results Statistically significant increases were seen in CCT (p<0.01), ACD (p<0.01), and AL (p<0.01) whereas a statistically significant decrease was seen in LT (p<0.01) post dilation. Using Method A, the percentage of eyes which would have received an IOL with 0.5 D or 1.0 D of higher power, if post-dilation measurements were used, were 25.5%, 30.6%, 20.4% and 23.5% for Barrett, Olsen, Hill-RBF and Haigis, respectively. Using Method B, only Haigis and Olsen had a statistically significant increase in ideal IOL power. Conclusions Pharmacologic dilation can be associated with an increase in non-custom IOL dioptric power when using multivariable formulas, which may lead to a myopic surprise.

show abstract

“…The only currently used IOL calculation approach using Artificial Intelligence is the Hill-RBF formula, which has reported accuracy of 91% of the eyes within ± 0.5 D range from the intended target refraction (Haag-Streit AG Koeniz, 2017). However, there is a number of papers that indicate that Hill-RBF accuracy is not significantly different from the Vergence formula category (Kane et al, 2017;Roberts et al, 2018;Shajari et al, 2018). Unfortunately, there is no publication of the Hill-RBF principle in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, so the only information about the principle itself can be obtained from freely available resources on the Internet.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Improving clinical refractive results of cataract surgery by machine learning (v0.1)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate potential of Support Vector Machine Regression model (SVM-RM) and Multilayer Neural Network Ensemble model (MLNN-EM) as an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation improvement for clinical workflow. Background. Current IOL power calculation methods offer limited accuracy and especially in eyes with an unusual ocular dimension the accuracy may decrease. In case of an improperly calculated power of the IOL in cataract or refractive lens replacement surgery, there is a risk of re-operation or further refractive correction. This may potentially induce complications and discomfort to the patient. Methods. A dataset containing information about 2194 eyes was obtained using data mining process from Electronic Health Record (EHR) system database of Gemini Eye Clinic. The dataset was optimized and split into Selection set (used in design of models and training), and Verification set (used in the evaluation). Set of mean prediction errors and distribution of predicted refractive error were evaluated for both models and Clinical results. Results. Both models performed significantly better for the most evaluated parameters compared to the clinical results. There was no significant difference between both evaluated models. In the ± 0.50 D prediction error category both SVM-RM and MLNN-EM were slightly better than Barrett Universal II formula (which is often presented as the most accurate calculation formula). Conclusion. In comparison to the method currently used in a clinical setting, both SVM-RM and MLNN-EM has achieved significantly better results in IOL calculations and therefore there is a strong potential to improve clinical cataract refractive outcomes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 84 publications

References 34 publications

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

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

The Effect of Pharmacological Dilation on Calculation of Targeted and Ideal IOL Power Using Multivariable Formulas

Peer Review #1 of "Improving clinical refractive results of cataract surgery by machine learning (v0.1)"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About