Comparison of the Barrett Universal II, Kane and VRF-G formulas with existing intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with short axial lengths

Voytsekhivskyy, Oleksiy; Tutchenko, Larysa; Hipólito-Fernandes, Diogo

doi:10.1038/s41433-021-01890-7

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This investigation supports results that were previously published in studies related to the accuracy of these two methods. 6 , 7 , 18 , 19 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the VRF and VRF-G Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry

Voytsekhivskyy

2023

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To collate the accuracy of two recently introduced intraocular lens (IOL) formulas (VRF and VRF-G) in cataract patients using a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometry (IOL Master 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany). Patients and Methods Data records of 295 eyes from 295 patients were included in this scrutiny. The IOLMaster 700 SS-OCT biometer was used for biometric measurements. The VRF and VRF-G formulas were compared with seven 3rd and 4th generation thin and thick-lens formulas: Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK/T, T2, and Barrett Universal II. With optimized lens constants, the mean prediction error (PE) and its standard deviation (SD), the median absolute error (MedAE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.00 D, and <±2.00 D were analyzed. Results Statistically significant differences were found between formulas in the whole group (Friedman test, P = 0.000). The VRF-G and Haigis formulas showed the lowest SD values (0.464 D and 0.466 D respectively). The VRF and Barrett Universal II formulas were less predictable (SD 0.471 D and SD 0.474 D respectively). The biggest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 D was found with VRF-G (76.27%), Haigis (75.59%), VRF (74.92%), and Barrett Universal II (74.92%) formulas. Conclusion Based on data achieved from the SS-OCT biometry, the VRF-G and Haigis methods were the more precise predictors of postoperative refraction with the biggest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 D.

show abstract

“…This investigation supports results that were previously published in studies related to the accuracy of these two methods. 6 , 7 , 18 , 19 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the VRF and VRF-G Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry

Voytsekhivskyy

2023

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another disorder category is relative anterior microphthalmos when eyes have a smaller anterior segment, however, this does not fall within the scope of this review because they usually have a normal AL [13]. It should be noted that several studies in the literature have defined “short eyes” as those with AL <22 mm without specifically classifying them into microphthalmos or nanophthalmos [14 ▪▪ ,15]. Holladay demonstrated that 80% of eyes with short AL had a normal anterior segment and only 20% are considered nanophthalmos with a small anterior segment [16].…”

Section: Definitions Of Short Axial Lengthmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Voytsekhivskyy and colleagues evaluated 10 IOL calculations formulas (Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis, SRK/T, T2, VRF, VRF-G, Barrett Universal II, and Kane) in 172 eyes with AL <22 mm. They demonstrated that the Haigis formula and the newer IOL formulas (Kane and VRF-G) had the highest accuracy, while Barrett Universal II had the lowest accuracy [14 ▪▪ ]. Shammas and colleagues compared the accuracy of old IOL formulas (Hoffer Q, Holladay I, SRK/T, and Haigis) to newer IOL formulas (EVO, Hill-RBF, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True Axial Length, Hoffer QST, Holladay II, Holladay II-NLR, Kane, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, K6, T2, and VRF) in 78 eyes with short AL.…”

Section: Preoperative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cataract surgery in adult eyes with short axial length

Elhusseiny

Sallam

2022

Current Opinion in Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of reviewCataract surgery in eyes of patients with short axial length (AL) can be technically challenging and is associated with a high risk of intra- and postoperative complications. Several technical and surgical strategies have been proposed to optimize the visual outcome and decrease the rate of surgical complications and it is important to understand their applications in these casesRecent findingsTraditional intraocular lens (IOL) measurement formulas in eyes with short AL have reduced reliability. Novel formulas such as the Kane formula provide a better refractive prediction. Surgery can be difficult in short eyes due to the crowdedness of the anterior chamber (AC) and the associated scleral abnormalities increasing the risk of uveal effusion. Surgical techniques such as prophylactic scleral incisions, limited pars plana anterior vitrectomy, and modified hydrodissection, have been shown to facilitate surgery in extremely short eyes and decrease the rate of operative complications. Although cataract surgery improves vision in these cases, short AL and shallow AC have been associated with worse visual outcomes.SummaryNewer 4th generation IOL formulas have improved the refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with short AL. There are multiple evolving surgical strategies for optimizing surgery in these eyes. However, studies on the surgical and visual outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with short AL are limited by their design and sample size. With further research and continued clinical experiences, we hope to develop evidence-based algorithms for the management of these complex cases.

show abstract

“…The recently introduced Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formula requires AL, K, and ACD, with LT and CCT being optional parameters ( 14 ). Multiple studies showed that the new Kane formula demonstrated clear advantages in short eyes compared to previous formulas ( 6 , 15 , 16 ). The main population of these studies is white.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths

Ma,

Lin,

et al. 2023

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the measurement accuracy of new/updated intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods, namely, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), with existing methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T) in Chinese eyes with axial lengths ≤ 22.5 mm.MethodsThe study included data from patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with the insertion of ZCB00 IOL. Refractive prediction errors were determined by calculating the difference between postoperative refraction and the predicted refraction using each formula. Various parameters were evaluated, including mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within different ranges.ResultsThe study enrolled 38 eyes of 38 patients, and the Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAE and MedAE among the tested formulas. Post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank pairwise comparisons for non-parametric samples with Bonferroni correction revealed no significant difference in postoperative refractive prediction among all the formulas (P > 0.05). The percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D was as follows: Barrett Universal II, 81.58%; Haigis, 78.95%; EVO, 76.32%; Olsen, 76.32%; Holladay I, 73.68%; SRK/T, 71.05%; Kane, 68.42%; and Hoffer Q, 65.79%.ConclusionThe Barrett Universal II formula was more accurate than the other formulas for Chinese eyes with AL ≤ 22.5 mm.

show abstract

Comparison of the Barrett Universal II, Kane and VRF-G formulas with existing intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with short axial lengths

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of the VRF and VRF-G Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry

Accuracy of the VRF and VRF-G Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry

Cataract surgery in adult eyes with short axial length

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About