Austin Pereira1, Marko M Popovic1, Yusuf Ahmed2, John C Lloyd1,3, Sherif El-Defrawy1,4, John Gorfinkel1,4, Matthew B Schlenker5,6. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, 340 College Street Unit 400, Toronto, ON, M5T 3A9, Canada. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. 3. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. 4. Kensington Eye Institute, 340 College Street Unit 501, Toronto, ON, M5T 3A9, Canada. 5. Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, 340 College Street Unit 400, Toronto, ON, M5T 3A9, Canada. matt.schlenker@gmail.com. 6. Kensington Eye Institute, 340 College Street Unit 501, Toronto, ON, M5T 3A9, Canada. matt.schlenker@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations: Barrett Universal II, EVO, Haigis, Hill-RBF version 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, SRK/T, Super Formula and T2. METHODS: In this retrospective consecutive case series, cataract extraction and IOL implantation cases in Toronto, Canada, were recruited between 2017 and 2019. Refractive predictions were compared to the observed 1-month postoperative spherical equivalent to determine the refractive error for each formula cohort. Subgroup analysis stratified eyes into short (≤ 22.5 mm)-, intermediate (22.5 mm-25.5 mm)- and long (≥ 25.5 mm)-axial length (AL) cohorts. The primary outcome was the percentage of cases within ± 0.50D of refractive error. RESULTS: Overall, 764 cataract cases were analyzed. Formulas with the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50D of refractive error, in decreasing order, were: Kane (77.7%), Barrett Universal II (77.4%), EVO (76.6%), T2 (76.4%), Super (75.9%), Holladay 1 (75.4%), Hill-RBF 2.0 (74.7%), SRK/T (72.6%), Hoffer Q (72.5%), Haigis (71.7%), Olsen (67.4%) and Holladay 2 (67.3%). For short-AL eyes, the Holladay 1 formula was most accurate (n = 69, 78.3% within ± 0.50D), and for long-AL eyes, the Barrett Universal II formula was most accurate (n = 116, 76.7% within ± 0.50D). Kane, Barrett, EVO, T2 and Super formulas led to a significantly lower mean absolute error compared to the open-source calculations with optimized lens constants (p-value: < 0.001-0.042). CONCLUSIONS: The Kane formula was the most accurate formula for the overall analysis. The Holladay 1 calculation was most accurate for short-AL cases, whereas the Barrett Universal II was superior for long-AL eyes.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations: Barrett Universal II, EVO, Haigis, Hill-RBF version 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, SRK/T, Super Formula and T2. METHODS: In this retrospective consecutive case series, cataract extraction and IOL implantation cases in Toronto, Canada, were recruited between 2017 and 2019. Refractive predictions were compared to the observed 1-month postoperative spherical equivalent to determine the refractive error for each formula cohort. Subgroup analysis stratified eyes into short (≤ 22.5 mm)-, intermediate (22.5 mm-25.5 mm)- and long (≥ 25.5 mm)-axial length (AL) cohorts. The primary outcome was the percentage of cases within ± 0.50D of refractive error. RESULTS: Overall, 764 cataract cases were analyzed. Formulas with the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50D of refractive error, in decreasing order, were: Kane (77.7%), Barrett Universal II (77.4%), EVO (76.6%), T2 (76.4%), Super (75.9%), Holladay 1 (75.4%), Hill-RBF 2.0 (74.7%), SRK/T (72.6%), Hoffer Q (72.5%), Haigis (71.7%), Olsen (67.4%) and Holladay 2 (67.3%). For short-AL eyes, the Holladay 1 formula was most accurate (n = 69, 78.3% within ± 0.50D), and for long-AL eyes, the Barrett Universal II formula was most accurate (n = 116, 76.7% within ± 0.50D). Kane, Barrett, EVO, T2 and Super formulas led to a significantly lower mean absolute error compared to the open-source calculations with optimized lens constants (p-value: < 0.001-0.042). CONCLUSIONS: The Kane formula was the most accurate formula for the overall analysis. The Holladay 1 calculation was most accurate for short-AL cases, whereas the Barrett Universal II was superior for long-AL eyes.
Authors: Giacomo Savini; Marco Di Maita; Kenneth J Hoffer; Kristian Næser; Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello; Aldo Vagge; Luca Di Cello; Carlo E Traverso Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.638