Search

Purpose To investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) on the accuracy of the Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II (BU II), Olsen, SRK/T, and Haigis formulas in patients with elongated eyes. Design Retrospective case series study. Methods A total of 106 patients (106 eyes) diagnosed with high myopia (axial length ≥26 mm) were enrolled and divided into 3 subgroups according to preoperative ACD. Mean refractive error (ME), mean absolute refractive error (MAE), median absolute refractive error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were calculated. Results In all patients, the MedAE was lowest for the Kane formula (0.28 D), followed by the BU II (0.34 D). In the shallow ACD subgroup, EVO 2.0 formula produced the lowest MedAE (0.22 D), and the highest proportion of eyes within ±0.25 D (58%); the BU II (0.23 D, 50%) and Kane (0.25 D, 50%) formulas produced similar proportions. In the deep ACD group, the MedAEs of the Haigis and SRK/T formulas (0.68 D and 0.50 D, respectively) were significantly higher than those of the EVO 2.0 (0.37 D), Kane (0.30 D), BU II (0.43 D), and Olsen (0.34 D) formulas (P Conclusions Overall, the Kane and EVO 2.0 formulas had the highest accuracy. EVO 2.0 and BU II formulas are recommended for patients with shallow ACD; the Kane formula is recommended for patients with deep ACD (especially patients with extremely elongated eyes). The SRK/T and Haigis formulas should be avoided as much as possible.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Kane, and SRK/T formulas for intraocular lens power calculation in patients with high axial myopia. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 175 eyes (175 patients) that underwent uneventful cataract surgery were enrolled. According to the axial length (AL), the eyes were divided into long AL (26 ⩽ AL < 28 mm), super long AL (28 ⩽ AL < 30 mm), and extremely long AL (⩾ 30 mm). The mean absolute prediction errors (MAE) 3 months postoperatively and the percentage of eyes within different prediction error were compared, followed by subgroup analysis. RESULTS: The MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (D) of the five formulas were as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.342, 74.9%), EVO 2.0 (0.314, 82.3%), Haigis (0.336, 74.9%), Kane (0.318, 78.9%), and SRK/T (0.398, 69.7%) ( P = .552 and .071, respectively). Although no significant difference was found among the five formulas in the super and extremely long AL groups ( P = .792 and .227, respectively), the EVO 2.0 formula achieved the highest accuracy (88.9%, 72 of 81) in the long AL group ( P = .049). Moreover, the accuracy of the EVO 2.0 and Haigis formulas was stable, regardless of AL. The SRK/T formula showed a negative trend in the long and super long AL groups, whereas the Barrett Universal II, Kane, and SRK/T formulas showed positive trends in the extremely long AL group. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the EVO 2.0 and Kane formulas achieved better results in patients with high axial myopia, whereas the other three formulas showed slightly poor outcomes. [ J Refract Surg . 2021;37(11):754–758.]

AimTo compare the preoperative biometric data and the refractive accuracy of cataract surgery among major surgical sites in a nationwide multicentre study.MethodsWe prospectively obtained the preoperative biometric data of 2143 eyes of 2143 consecutive patients undergoing standard cataract surgery at major 12 facilities and compared the preoperative biometry as well as the postoperative refractive accuracy among them.ResultsWe found significant differences in most preoperative variables, such as axial length (one-way analysis of variance, p=0.003), anterior chamber depth (pConclusionsRegional divergences of the preoperative biometry were not necessarily negligible, and the optimised intraocular lens power calculation formula was individually different among the 12 facilities. Our findings highlight the importance of individual optimisation of these formulas at each facility, especially in consideration of these biometric variations.Trial registration numberClinical Trial Registry; 000039976.

To compare the performance of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in eyes undergoing combined silicone oil (SO) removal and cataract surgery and to evaluate the prediction accuracy of Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment in SO-filled long eyes.Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.Retrospective consecutive case-series study.New-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, Kane, and Ladas Super formulas) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas) were compared. The performance of WK adjustment was assessed in eyes with axial length more than 26 mm. The median absolute error (MedAE) was the main parameter to evaluate the accuracy of formulas.A total of 211 participants (211 eyes) who underwent combined SO removal and phacoemulsification with IOL implantation were included. Four new-generation formulas displayed statistically significant lower MedAE (0.32 to 0.35 diopter [D]) and higher percentage of eyes within ±1.00 D of prediction error (85.31% to 87.20%) compared with those of the traditional formulas (MedAE: 0.39 to 0.50 D; ±1.00 D: 81.04% to 81.99%, P.05). For SO-filled long eyes, all traditional formulas showed hyperopic bias (0.36 to 0.65 D, P.05), except for Haigis formula (0.28 D, P = .083), and this bias could be corrected by WK adjustment (P.05). EVO formula displayed the lowest MedAE both in total (0.32 D) and in long eyes (0.33 D).New-generation formulas and traditional formulas with WK adjustment showed satisfactory prediction accuracy in eyes undergoing combined SO removal and cataract surgery. EVO formula displayed the highest accuracy.

Purpose: Creating models, in pediatric cataracts, to estimate kerotometry and axial length values at future ages, based on kerotometry and axial length measured at surgery, to estimate the intraocular lens power for emmetropia in future ages. Methods: Eyes with bilateral cataract and kerotometry and axial length measured at surgery and at least one postoperative examination with kerotometry and axial length measurements, were considered for this study. The models to estimate future kerotometry and axial length values were created considering (1) kerotometry and axial length measured at surgery, (2) the average slope of kerotometry and axial length logarithmic regression created for every single eye and (3) age at surgery. The intraocular lens for future ages can be estimated using these values in third generation formulas. The estimation errors for kerotometry, axial length and intraocular lens were also calculated. Results: A total of 57 eyes from 29 patients met the inclusion criteria. The average age at the surgery and follow-up was 36.96 ± 32.04 months and 2.39 ± 1.46 years, respectively. The average slope of logarithmic regression created for every single eye were -3.286 for kerotometry and +3.189 for axial length. The average absolute estimation errors for kerotometry and axial length were respectively: 0.61 ± 0.54 D and 0.49 ± 0.55 mm, and for intraocular lens using SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay I formulas were: 2 . 04 ± 1 . 73 D , 2 . 49 ± 2 . 10 D and 2 . 26 ± 1 . 87 D, respectively. Conclusions: The presented models could be used to estimate the intraocular lens power for emmetropia at future ages to guide the choice of the intraocular lens power to be implanted in pediatric cataract. RESUMO Objetivo: Criar modelos, em catarata pediátrica, para estimar valores futuros de ceratometria e comprimento axial, com base na ceratometria e no comprimento axial medidos na cirurgia, para previsão do poder da lente intraocular para emetropia em idades futuras. Métodos: Olhos com catarata bilateral, ceratometria e comprimento axial medidos na cirurgia e pelo menos um exame pós-operatório com medidas de ceratometria e comprimento axial foram considerados para este estudo. Os modelos para estimar futuras ceratometrias e comprimentos axiais foram criados considerando (1) ceratometria e comprimento axial medidos na cirurgia, (2) a inclinação média da regressão logarítmica da ceratometria e comprimento axial criada para cada olho e (3) a idade na cirurgia. A lente intraocular para emetropia em idades futuras pode ser estimada usando esses valores em fórmulas de terceira geração. Os erros de estimativa da ceratometria, comprimento axial e poder da lente intraocular, usando os modelos, também foram calculados. Resultados: 57 olhos de 29 pacientes preencheram os critérios de inclusão. A idade média na cirurgia e acompanhamento foram de 36,96 ± 32,04 meses e 2,39 ± 1,46 anos, respectivamente. A inclinação média da regressão logarítmica criada para cada olho foi de -3.286 para ceratometria e + 3.189 para o comprimento axial. Os erros médios de estimativa absoluta para ceratometria e comprimento axial foram respectivamente: 0,61 ± 0,54 D e 0,49 ± 0,55 mm, e para o poder da lente intraocular usando as fórmulas SRK-T, Hoffer-Q e Holladay I foram: 2,04 ± 1,73 D, 2,49 ± 2,10 D e 2,26 ± 1,87 D, respectivamente. Conclusões: Os modelos apresentados podem ser utilizados para estimar o poder da lente intraocular que levaria a emetropia em idades futuras e orientar a escolha do poder da lente intraocular a ser implantada na catarata pediátrica.

PURPOSE To assess the predictive accuracy of 4 no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with prior myopic excimer laser surgery, classified in 4 groups according to their axial length (AL), and investigate the relationship between AL and predictive accuracy. SETTING Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Republic of Korea. DESIGN Retrospective case series. METHODS IOL power was calculated with the Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, and Triple-S formulas in 4 groups classified according to AL. Primary outcomes were the median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 diopter (D). RESULTS This study included 107 eyes of 107 patients. The Barrett True-K had the lowest MedAE when AL was

Purpose Optimization of lens constants is a critically important step that improves refractive outcomes significantly. Whether lens constants optimized for the entire range of axial length would perform equally well in short eyes is still a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to analyze whether lens constants need to be optimized specifically for short eyes. Methods : This retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Central India. Eighty-six eyes of eighty-six patients were included. Optical biometry with IOLMaster 500 was done in all cases and lens constants were optimized using built-in software. Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae were compared using optimized constants. Mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction, of each formula were analyzed using manufacturer's, ULIB, and optimized lens constants. MedAE was compared across various constants used by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and among optimized constants by Friedman's test. Cochran's Q test compared the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ±0.50, ±1.00, and ± 2.00 diopter of the predicted refraction. A value of P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results : Optimized constant of Haigis had significantly lower MedAE (P < 0.00001) as compared to manufacturers. However, there was no statistically significant difference between ULIB and optimized constants. Postoptimization, there was no statistically significant difference among all formulae. Conclusion : Optimizing lens constants specifically for short eyes gives no added advantage over those optimized for the entire range of axial length.

To evaluate the features of the axial length-to-corneal radius (AL/CR) ratio in Japanese patients with cataracts and to determine the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas according to the AL/CR features and the axial length (AL).Retrospective observational case series.Setting was a clinical practice. Patient population was a total of 1,135 eyes (1,135 patients) with cataracts. Observation procedures included measurement of the AL and corenal radius (CR) by optical biometry and evaluation of the refractive outcomes by using the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas. Main outcome measurements were the features of the AL/CR ratio and the accuracy of IOL power calculations based on the AL/CR ratio and the AL.The mean AL/CR ratio was 3.15 ± 0.19. Significant weak negative correlations were observed between the spherical equivalent (SE) and AL (r = -0.7489; P.001) and between the SE and AL/CR ratio (r = -0.8069; P.001); no correlation was found between the SE and CR (r = 0.0208, P = .483). For medium ALs and high AL/CR ratios, the SRK/T formula performed less accurately. For long ALs and high AL/CR ratios, the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas performed less accurately. The Barrett Universal II formula performed well across a range of ALs and AL/CR ratios.The AL/CR ratio explained the total variation in the SE better than the AL alone. Surgeons should pay attention to the selection of IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with high AL/CR ratios.

AimsTo provide clinical guidance on the use of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas according to the biometric parameters.Methods611 eyes that underwent cataract surgery were retrospectively analysed in subgroups according to the axial length (AL) and corneal power (K). The predicted residual refractive error was calculated and compared to evaluate the accuracy of the following formulas: Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T. Furthermore, the percentages of eyes with ≤±0.25, ≤±0.5 and 1 dioptres (D) of the prediction error were recorded.ResultsThe Haigis formula showed the highest percentage of cases with ≤0.5 D in eyes with a short AL and steep K (90%), average AL and steep cornea (73.2%) but also in long eyes with a flat and average K (65% and 72.7%, respectively). The Hoffer Q formula delivered the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) in short eyes with an average K (0.30 D) and Holladay 1 in short eyes with a steep K (Holladay 1 0.24 D). SRK/T presented the highest percentage of cases with ≤0.5 D in average long eyes with a flat and average K (80.5% and 68.1%, respectively) and the lowest MedAE in long eyes with an average K (0.29 D).ConclusionOverall, the Haigis formula shows accurate results in most subgroups. However, attention must be paid to the axial eye length as well as the corneal power when choosing the appropriate formula to calculate an IOL power, especially in eyes with an unusual biometry.

PURPOSE: To investigate agreement between biometric measurements obtained from the Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit AG) based on optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) and the Tomey OA-2000 (Tomey Corporation) based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) in dense cataracts. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, axial length, keratometry, anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness, and central corneal thickness (CCT) were measured in 124 eyes of 76 patients. Intraocular lens prediction errors and absolute prediction errors were assessed based on postoperative manifest refraction. Analyses used were paired t test, Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ), and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Failure in axial length measurements was noted in 28 eyes (22.58%) with OCLR compared to 2 eyes (1.6%) with SS-OCT. Although not statistically significant, axial length measurements were clinically higher with SS-OCT (23.78 ± 1.76 mm) compared to OCLR (23.72 ± 1.58 mm) ( P = .81) ( r = 0.23; P = .01). There was a significant trend toward myopic intraocular lens prediction with SS-OCT (−0.09 ± 0.48) compared to OLCR (0.09 ± 0.41, P < .01) ( r = 0.25, P = .01). There was good agreement for keratometric and ACD values between the two devices. SS-OCT gave significantly higher values of lens thickness compared to OCLR (4.44 ± 0.44 vs 4.18 ± 0.48 mm, P < .01) ( r = 0.39, P < .01). CCT measured with OCLR was significantly higher than SS-OCT (525.64 ± 27.0 vs 513.21 ± 29.24 µm; P < .01) ( r = 0.98, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: One-fifth of the patients with dense cataracts failed axial length measurement on OCLR. SS-OCT gives clinically higher axial length measurements leading to more myopic intraocular lens prediction errors postoperatively. OCLR provides higher pachymetry and lower lens thickness values compared to the SS-OCT device. [ J Refract Surg . 2020;36(8):557–564.]

Purpose of review We review recent studies comparing intraocular lens (IOL) formulas with an emphasis on selection of the highest performing formulas based on patient axial length, age, and history of previous corneal refractive surgery. Recent findings The Barrett Universal II formula based on a theoretical model has consistently demonstrated high accuracy. The Olsen four-factor formula using ray tracing optics and the Hill-RBF calculator using artificial intelligence have also demonstrated good prediction results after being updated. Notably, the Kane formula, incorporating artificial intelligence, has overall shown the best performance for all axial lengths. Although newly developed and updated IOL formulas have improved refractive prediction in patients with short or long axial length eyes or prior history of corneal refractive surgery, these challenging cases still require special consideration. The Barrett True-K formula has shown accurate results regardless of preoperative data in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery. Summary Advancements in optical biometry and IOL calculation formulas continue to improve refractive outcomes. The clinician can optimize refractive outcomes in the majority of patients with the use of formulas that have shown consistent results and accuracy in several large studies.

To evaluate the performance of Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas with the axial length (AL) adjustment methods including the linear and nonlinear versions of Wang-Koch AL adjustment methods and Cooke-modified AL (CMAL); and to determine whether the CMAL should be extended to the latest Barrett Universal II, Ladas Super formula (LSF), and Emmetropia Verifying Optical formulas in highly myopic eyes.Retrospective, consecutive case-series study.A total of 164 eyes of 164 patients with AL ≥26.0 mm were included and divided into 2 groups: AL28.0 mm (Group 1) and AL ≥28.0 mm (Group 2). The average arithmetic spherical equivalent prediction error (PE), mean absolute PE, median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.0 D of PE were determined.The Holladay 1 formulas showed the smallest MedAE when combined with the first linear or nonlinear version of Wang-Koch AL adjustment methods, both in total and in subgroups. The SRK/T formula displayed the highest prediction accuracy in combination with the first linear version of Wang-Koch adjustment method in total and subgroups. The CMAL reduced the absolute PE of LSF in total (P = .003) and in Group 1 (P = .017).The Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas combined with specific AL adjustment methods had accuracy similar to the fourth-generation formulas for highly myopic eyes. Moreover, the CMAL can improve the accuracy of the LSF for highly myopic eyes.

Objectives To compare different methods in calculating the corneal radius (R) to be used in case of intraocular lens power calculations when it is immeasurable. Methods The right eyes of 1,960 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups. The first group of right eyes (group A) was divided in three groups according to the axial length (AL) (≤21.99 mm, between 22 and 24.99 mm, and ≥25 mm). In these groups, the correlation between the AL and the corneal radius (R) provided three different regression formulas. The second group of right eyes (group B) was used to test the following methods of estimating the R: the regression formulas determined from group A, formula from Logan et al., formula from Stenstrom, the mean R calculated from group A, and the fellow eye group B. A Student paired T test was used for the statistical evaluation. Results In case of AL≤21.99, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=0.00±0.09 mm, P=0.94, mean=0.05±0.21 mm, P=0.05, mean=0.05±0.22 mm, P=0.08, respectively). In case of AL between 22 and 24.99 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.01±0.09 mm, P=0.38, mean=0.01±0.21 mm, P=0.12, mean=0.01±0.24 mm, P=0.18, respectively). In case of AL≥25 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.003±0.08 mm, P=0.94 mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, respectively). Conclusions The new calculated regression formulas seem to represent a reliable method to calculate the R when it is undetectable, as in case of corneal dystrophies.

To investigate the prediction accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas, and the impact of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measurement errors on IOL power calculation in patients undergoing combined phakic IOL (PIOL) removal and cataract surgery.Retrospective, consecutive case series study.Thirty-six PIOL implanted eyes (12 anterior chamber PIOLs and 24 posterior chamber PIOLs [PC-PIOL]) undergoing cataract surgery were included. The prediction accuracy of new formulas (Barrett universal II, Emmetropia verifying optical, Kane, and Ladas super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) with or without Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment was evaluated. The influence of ACD and LT measurement errors of IOLMaster 700 on refractive outcomes was also investigated.The Kane and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment had no significant systematic prediction error and displayed a smaller median absolute error, whereas the other formulas showed significant hyperopia shift (P.05) and relatively lower prediction accuracy. The accuracy rate of IOLMaster 700 in measuring the ACD and LT was 100% in eyes with anterior chamber PIOL implantation, and 37.50% in the PC-PIOL subgroup. No significant difference was observed in refractive outcomes of formulas using correct and wrong parameters in the PC-PIOL subgroup (P.05).The Kane and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment exhibited relatively higher prediction accuracy in patients who underwent combined PIOL removal and cataract surgery. The IOLMaster 700 displayed low accuracy in ACD and LT measurements for PC-PIOL implanted eyes, but showed negligible impact on IOL prediction accuracy.

Purpose: Hyperopic surprises tend to occur in axial myopic eyes and other factors including corneal curvature have rarely been analyzed in cataract surgery, especially in eyes with long axial length (≥ 26.0 mm). Thus, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the influence of keratometry on four different formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for long eyes.Methods: Retrospective case-series. 180 eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 26.0 mm were divided into 3 keratometry (K) groups: K ≤ 42.0 D (Flat), K ≥ 46.0 D (Steep), 42.0 < K < 46.0 D (Average). Prediction errors (PE) were compared between different formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE.Results: The mean absolute error was higher for all evaluated formulas in Steep group (ranging from 0.66 D to 1.02 D) than the Flat (0.34 D to 0.67 D) and Average groups (0.40 D to 0.74D). The median absolute errors predicted by Olsen formula were significantly lower than that predicted by Haigis formula (0.42 D versus 0.85 D in Steep and 0.29 D versus 0.69 D in Average) in Steep and Average groups (P = 0.012, P < 0.001, respectively). And the Olsen formula demonstrated equal accuracy to the Barrett II formula in Flat and Average groups. The predictability of the SRK/T formula was affected by the AL and K, while the predictability of Olsen and Haigis formulas was affected by the AL only. Conclusions: Steep cornea has more influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation than the other corneal shape in long eyes. Overall, both the Olsen and Barrett Universal II formulas are recommended in long eyes with unusual keratometry.

Purpose To compare the prediction accuracy of algorithmic intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula selection method using conventional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and/or Barrett Universal II) based on keratometry (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL). Methods A total of 1653 patients (1653 eyes) implanted with Tecnis ZCB00 IOL during cataract surgery were enrolled in this study. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with a small absolute value in the sum of the area under the curve measured by K, ACD and AL subgroup were selected to calculate IOL power in the relevant biometry subgroup. The median absolute error (MedAE) calculated by the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and Barrett Universal II formulas individually was compared to that calculated by the algorithmic selection method using four formulas, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T, or five formulas when Barrett is included. Results The MedAE was 0.27 D in the Haigis, 0.30 D in the Hoffer Q, 0.27 D in the Holladay 1, 0.29 D in the SRK/T and 0.26 D in the Barrett Universal II formulas. The MedAEs determined by the algorithmic selection method using four (019 D) and five (0.21 D) formulas were significantly lower than those by the conventional IOL power calculation formulas. Conclusions The IOL power calculation formula selection method by biometry subgroup combined with biometric parameters K, ACD and AL may offer a more superior postoperative refractive error prediction in cataract surgery.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the change in axial length (AL) after cataract surgery measured by swept source optical coherence tomography (IOLMaster 700), and explore ways to eliminate this AL measurement error in pseudophakic eyes. Methods Patients with cataract who underwent unilateral phacoemulsification with four types of intraocular lens (IOLs) implantation (Asphina 509M, Tecnis PCB00, enVista MX60, and Acrysof SN60WF) were enrolled. Bilateral AL measurements were performed before and 1 month after cataract surgery utilizing IOLMaster 700. The postoperative AL of the operated eye was evaluated using three different modes (phakic, aphakic, and pseudophakic), and the fellow eye was measured by phakic mode. Associations among the AL change and cataract grade, lens thickness, preoperative AL, or refractive index of IOL were investigated using stepwise multivariate linear regression. Results A total of 305 patients with cataract with mean age of 65.97 ± 13.39 years were recruited. The mean postoperative AL was 0.10 mm and 0.21 mm shorter than the pre-operative AL utilizing pseudophakic and phakic modes, respectively (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between pre-operative and postoperative AL using aphakic mode (P = 0.264). There were no significant associations among AL change in pseudophakic eye and cataract grade, lens thickness, pre-operative AL, or refractive index of IOL (P > 0.05). Conclusions A correction factor of 0.10 mm is suggested to eliminate AL measurement error of IOLMaster 700 in pseudophakic eyes before further improvement of AL measurement accuracy. Translational Relevance Our study may help to eliminate the AL measurement error of IOLMaster 700 in pseudophakic eyes.

To explore the impact of preoperative lens vault (LV) on the accuracy of the Barrett Universal Ⅱ, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T formulas in eyes with a shallow anterior chamber.Retrospective case series.Included were 409 eyes with anterior chamber depth (ACD) shallower than 3.0 mm that underwent phacoemulsification. Eyes were divided into a short axial length (AL) group (22.00 mm) and a normal AL group (22.00 ≤ AL24.50 mm). Each group was further divided into a small LV subgroup (LV0.95 mm) and a large LV subgroup (LV ≥0.95 mm) according to the median of the preoperative LV. Postoperative refraction was measured 3 months after surgery. Mean absolute error (MAE) was calculated and compared for each formula. The correlation between LV and the mean numeric error predicted by each formula was analyzed.Overall, the Barrett and Kane formulas generated the smallest MAE in both short AL and normal AL groups (P.05 for both). In short AL eyes with small LV, the Haigis formula performed better than other traditional formulas (P.05 for all). In normal AL eyes with a small LV, the Barrett and Kane formulas showed higher accuracy (P.05 for all), and other formulas were comparable. In either subgroup with a large LV, the Haigis formula created a significant higher MAE (P.001 for all), followed by Hoffer QST. Positive correlations were found between LV and mean numeric errors predicted by all formulas, except for Barrett and Kane formulas (P.001 for all), indicating a postoperative hyperopic shift with an increased LV.In shallow anterior chamber eyes with a large LV, the Haigis and Hoffer QST formulas taking preoperative ACD into calculation surprisingly showed a larger prediction error. However, the Barrett and the Kane formulas, which include both ACD and lens thickness as predictive parameters, showed good accuracy in both small and large LV subgroups. Therefore, although formulas referring to preoperative ACD are generally believed to achieve better refractive results in patients with a shallow anterior chamber, LV may be valuable to consider when choosing an IOL power calculation formula.

Summary Purpose To compare intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes longer than 25.0 mm in terms of absolute error and the percentages of postoperative emmetropia and hyperopia. Methods The data for myopic patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between October 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed. Intraocular lens power was calculated using Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas. The power of the lens implanted was based on Holladay 2. Three months after phacoemulsification, the refraction was measured, and the mean absolute error was calculated. The percentage of patients with good uncorrected visual acuity and percentage of hyperopic patients for each formula was established. ROC curves with a cut-off point of axial length were drawn for each formula and the area under the curve was evaluated. Results Seventy patients (81 eyes) whose ocular axial length ranged between 25.01 mm and 28.57 mm were included. The Barrett Universal II formula achieved the lowest mean absolute error of 0.08 ± 0.08 D. Additionally, with the Barrett Universal II, the percentage of patients with good uncorrected visual acuity (81.5%) was the highest, and the percentage of hyperopic patients (4.9%) was the lowest. The Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1 formulas had the largest area under curve (0.764 and 0.718, respectively). Conclusion 1. The Barrett Universal II formula is recommended for intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with axial length greater than 25.0 mm. 2. Considering the ROC curve method, the Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1 formulas appear to be the most appropriate.

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, Kane, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Haigis, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T in primary angle-closure disease (PACD). A total of 129 PACD eyes were enrolled. Prediction refraction was calculated for each formula and compared with actual refraction. Accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ± 0.50D. Subgroup analysis was performed according to axial length (AL). Overall, FPI was ranked as follows: Kane (0.067), RBF 3.0 (0.064), Haigis (0.062), SRK/T (0.060), BUII (0.058), Hoffer Q (0.055), and LSF (0.049). Kane got the highest (71.3%) percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D. In medium AL eyes (22 mm

PURPOSE: To determine whether a biometry training course could improve refractive outcomes of patients undergoing manual small-incision extracapsular cataract surgery (SICS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, interventional, cohort study at the Pacific Eye Institute, Fiji. SICS refractive outcomes were evaluated before and after a structured biometry teaching course. Eyes that underwent evaluation and subsequent SICS with placement of a posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) were included. Axial length measurements were obtained using A-scan applanation ultrasound and keratometry with a handheld keratometer. Main outcome measures included mean absolute prediction error of IOL calculations, percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D of intended spherical equivalent, and proportion of eyes with ≥6/18 uncorrected visual acuity. RESULTS: A total of 240 eyes were analyzed: 120 eyes before and 120 eyes after the structured biometry training. The mean absolute prediction error was 50% lower following the training (1.13 ± 0.84 D pre vs. 0.56 ± 0.44 D post; P < 0.001). A higher percentage of the eyes had a postoperative spherical equivalent within ±0.5 D (26.7% pre vs. 52.5% post; P < 0.001) and ±1.0 D (55.0% pre vs. 90.0% post; P < 0.001) of the intended target. A higher proportion of the eyes achieved ≥6/18 uncorrected visual acuity (77.5% pre vs. 91.7% post, P = 0.004), while the proportion with ≥6/18 corrected visual acuity was similar (94.4% pre vs. 98.3% post; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: A structured biometry training course may improve the accuracy of preoperative IOL calculations to achieve the postoperative refractive target. Ophthalmology training programs should include structured biometry teaching in their curricula.

Purpose: To audit and analyse the accuracy of current biometric formulae on refractive outcomes following cataract surgery in patients with axial length less than 22 mm. Methods: A total of 84 eyes from 84 patients with axial length Results: The mean axial length was 21.00 ± 0.55 mm. Mean error was greatest for Hoffer Q at −0.57 dioptres. There was no significant difference in mean absolute error between formulae. SRK/T achieved the highest percentage of outcomes within 0.5 dioptres (45.2%) and 1 dioptre (76.2%) of target. Shallower anterior chamber depth was associated with higher mean absolute error for SRK/T (p = 0.028), Hoffer Q (p = 0.003) and Haigis (p = 0.016) but not Holladay (p = 0.111). Conclusion: SRK/T had the highest proportion of patients achieving refractive results close to predicted outcomes. However, there was a significant association between a shallower anterior chamber depth and higher mean absolute error for all formulae except Holladay 1. This suggests that anterior chamber depth with axial length should be considered when counselling patients about refractive outcome.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate intraocular pressure (IOP) pre- and postoperatively, together with anterior chamber angle (ACA) parameters and biometrical results in cataract patients with or without open angle glaucoma (OAG). The prospective observational case–control study included 15 eyes with cataract and OAG in the glaucoma group and 25 eyes with only cataract in control group. Examination included full ophthalmic evaluation, IOP, ocular biometry and anterior segment optical coherence tomography measuring ACA pre- and 6 months postoperatively. OAG patients had a larger absolute IOP reduction compared to control group. Anterior chamber depth (ACD) and ACA width significantly increased in both groups. The OAG group had a tendency of narrower ACA preoperatively, but overall ACA parameters did not differ in either group pre- and postoperatively. The ACD change after surgery correlated with ACA parameters in the control group, but not in OAG group. Axial length was shorter postoperatively in the control group, but remained similar in the OAG group. Absolute IOP reduction was more pronounced in cataract patients with OAG than in cataract patients without glaucoma. ACD and ACA postoperatively increased in both groups and AL shortening was observed in non-OAG in cataract group.

PURPOSE To investigate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for the prediction of postoperative refraction in lens subluxation in Marfan syndrome. SETTING Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. DESIGN Consecutive retrospective clinical observational case series. METHODS 60 eligible eyes with lens subluxation from 39 young patients with Marfan syndrome (8.53 ± 4.38 years) underwent phacoemulsification combined with single-eyelet modified capsular tension ring (MCTR) and IOL implantation. The prediction error values with mean zero out (relative prediction error) and their absolute values (AE) were calculated. RESULTS Generally, the SRK/T formula with Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment had the lowest median AE at 0.418 diopters (D), and the Holladay 1 with WK adjustment had the lowest mean AE at 0.499 D. The median AE of the other 10 formulas, in order from lowest to highest, were Haigis with WK (0.494 D), Holladay 1 with WK (0.495 D), Hoffer Q with WK (0.508 D), Haigis (0.525 D), T2 (0.542 D), Hoffer Q (0.624 D), SRK/T and Holladay 1 (0.660 D), Super (0.680 D), and Barrett Universal II (0.714 D) formulas. Haigis formula was found to be statistically significantly different from SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Barrett Universal II (all 3 P < .001) but not Hoffer Q (P = .236) formula. CONCLUSIONS The Haigis formula was recommended for young Marfan lens subluxation patients with in-the-bag IOLs and scleral-sutured single-eyelet MCTR implantation. WK adjustments were successful in those cases where the axial length was longer than 25.0 mm.

To compare the accuracy of artificial intelligence formulas (Kane formula and Radial Basis Function [RBF] 2.0) and other formulas, including the original and modified Wang-Koch (MWK) adjustment formulas for Holladay 1 (H1-MWK) and SRK/T (SRK/T-WK and SRK/T-MWK), the Barrett Universal II (BUII), the emmetropia-verifying optical (EVO), and the Haigis equation in highly myopic eyes.Retrospective consecutive case-series study.A total of 370 eyes with an axial length (AL) ≥26.0 mm of 370 patients were enrolled, and subgroup analyses was performed based on ALs. The median absolute error (MedAE), the percentages of eyes with hyperopic outcome and within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D of prediction error were determined.Overall, the Kane equation had the lowest MedAE (0.26 D), followed by H1-WK (0.27 D) and H1-MWK (0.28 D). There were no significant differences in MedAE among the Kane equation, the RBF 2.0, the BUII, the H1-MWK, and the H1-WK, whereas the Kane equation had a significantly lower MedAE than EVO (P.001), SRK/T-MWK (P = .001), SRK/T-WK (P = .006), and Haigis (P.001). In extremely myopic eyes with an AL ≥30.0 mm (n = 115), the Kane equation had a significantly lower MedAE than the RBF 2.0 (P = .001), the EVO (P = .019), the BUII (P = .013), and the Haigis method (P = .005), whereas no significant differences were found among the Kane, H1-MWK, and H1-WK equations.The Kane equation was comparable to RBF 2.0, BUII, H1-MWK, and H1-WK in highly myopic eyes and was better than RBF 2.0 and BUII in extremely myopic eyes. The Kane, H1-MWK, and H1-WK methods were equally accurate in eyes with high to extreme myopia.

Purpose To compare the prediction accuracy of new intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO], Kane and Ladas Super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) with Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment in vitrectomized eyes. Design Retrospective consecutive case-series study. Methods One hundred eleven eyes of 111 patients underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and enVista MX60 implantation after vitrectomy were enrolled and divided into 4 groups according to whether the vitreous cavity was filled with silicone oil. The performance of each formula was evaluated with or without lens constant optimization. Results Before lens constants optimization, the mean prediction errors (MEs) of all formulas were statistically different from zero (0.14-0.46 diopters [D]) in vitrectomized eyes, except for the Kane formula. The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis had relatively lower mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) with optimized constants. No significant systemic bias was found in new formulas for vitrectomized eyes with AL >26 mm (P > .05). The Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 displayed significantly hyperopic shift (0.39 and 0.51 D) for long eyes, which was corrected by the WK adjustment. There were no significant differences in the prediction accuracy of all formulas among 4 subgroups (P > .05). Conclusions The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis displayed comparable performance in vitrectomized eyes with optimized constants. In vitrectomized highly myopic eyes, the new formulas and traditional formulas with WK adjustment exhibited satisfactory prediction accuracy. Silicone oil tamponade did not affect the prediction accuracy of formulas using IOLMaster 700.

To evaluate the accuracy of modified Wang-Koch adjustment for intraocular lens power calculation in axial myopic eyes at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China. Consecutive cataract patients with axial lengths (ALs) over 25.0 mm were enrolled. The accuracies of SRK/T and Holladay 1 with modified Wang-Koch AL adjustment were compared with those calculated with optimized lens constants for long eyes and lens constants from the User Group for Laser Interference Biometry. They were also compared with Barrett Universal II (Barrett) and Haigis. The median absolute error (AE), mean absolute error (MAE) and proportions of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.25 diopter (D), ± 0.50 D and ± 1.00 D were determined. In total, 325 eyes from patients with a mean age of 58.62 ± 13.51 years and a mean preoperative AL of 27.65 ± 2.05 mm were included. For SRK/T, Wang-Koch adjustment did not increase the proportion of eyes within the given diopter of PE in any AL subgroup and led to worse outcomes for ALs between 27.0 mm and 30.0 mm (n = 129; P = .001) compared to the method of using measured AL and optimized constant. For Holladay 1, comparison of PEs within ±0.50 D favored AL adjusted eyes in all subgroups. Moreover, the median AE of Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment in eyes with ALs between 25.0 mm and 27.0 mm was lower than that of Barrett (n = 146; P = .02). The modified Wang-Koch adjustment had better performance than constant optimization for Holladay 1 but not for SRK/T. Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment was more accurate than Barrett for ALs between 25.0 mm and 27.0 mm.

To compare the accuracy of the eight formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in pediatric cataract patients.A retrospective study. A total of 68 eyes (68 patients) that underwent uneventful cataract surgery and posterior chamber IOL implantation in the capsular bag were enrolled. We compared the calculation accuracy of the 8 formulas at 1 month postoperatively and performed subgroup analysis according to age or axial length (AL).The mean age at surgery was 34.07 ± 24.60 months and mean AL was 21.12 ± 1.42 mm. The mean prediction errors (PE) of eight formulas for all patients were as follows: SRK II (- 0.66), SRK/T (- 0.44), Holladay 1 (- 0.36), Hoffer Q (- 0.09), Olsen (0.71), Barrett (0.37), Holladay 2 (- 0.70), and Haigis (0.50). There was significant difference among the 8 formulas (p 0.0001), while no significant difference of absolute PE was found among the 8 formulas in all patients (p = 0.053). Moreover, in patients younger than 2 years old or with AL ≤ 21 mm, SRK/T formula was relatively accurate in 34% and 39% of eyes, respectively. While in patients older than 2 or with AL 21 mm, Barrett and Haigis formulas were better (58% and 47% for Barrett, 52% and 53% for Haigis).Overall, in patients younger than 2 years old or with AL ≤ 21 mm, SRK/T formulas were relatively accurate, while Barrett and Haigis formulas were better in patients older than 2 or with AL 21 mm.

To compare measurements of axial length (AL), corneal curvature (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and white-to-white (WTW) distance on a new device combining Scheimpflug camera and partial coherence interferometry (Pentacam AXL) with a reference optical biometer (IOL Master 500). To evaluate differences between IOL power calculations based on the two biometers. Ninety-seven eyes of 97 consecutive cataract or refractive lens exchange patients were examined preoperatively on IOL Master 500 and Pentacam AXL units. Comparisons between two devices were performed for AL, K, ACD and WTW. Intraocular lens (IOL) power targeting emmetropia was calculated with SRK/T and Haigis formulas on both devices and compared. There were statistically significant differences between two devices for all measured parameters (P

Yunus Karabela,1 Mustafa Eliacik,2 Mehmet Selim Kocabora,3 Sevil Karaman Erdur,3 Hakan Baybora4 1Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul Medipol University, Esenler Hospital, Esenler, 2Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul Medipol University, Kadikoy Medipol Hospital, Kadikoy, 3Department of Ophthalmology, Istanbul Medipol University, Mega Medipol Hospital, Bagcilar, 4Department of Ophthalmology, Nisa Hospital, Bahcelievler, Istanbul, Turkey Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the SRK/T formula using ultrasound (US) biometry in predicting a target postoperative refraction of ±1.00D in eyes with medium axial length (AL) that underwent phacoemulsification. Methods: The present study was a retrospective analysis, which included 538 eyes with an AL from 22.0 to 24.60 mm that underwent phacoemulsification and foldable intraocular lens (IOL) implantation (six different IOLs) in the bag. Preoperative AL was measured by US biometry and IOL power (IOLp) was calculated with the SRK/T formula. Patients had a complete ophthalmic examination, preoperatively and 1, 7, and 30 days after surgery. The achieved spherical equivalent (SE) and the prediction error (PE) were calculated. The prediction error was defined as the difference between attempted predicted target refraction and the achieved postoperative SE refraction. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS V21. Results: The mean age of the patients was 66.96±9.67 years, the mean AL was 23.29±0.62 mm, the mean K1 was 43.62±1.49D, the mean K2 was 43.69±1.53D, the mean IOL power was 21.066±1.464D, the mean attempted (predicted) SE was -0.178±0.266D, and the mean achieved SE was -0.252±0.562D. The mean PE (difference between predicted and achieved SE) showed a relatively hyperopic shift (mean±standard deviation: 0.074±0.542D, ranging from -1.855 to 2.170D, P=0.001). A total of 93.87% of eyes were within ±1.00D of the PE and 92.75% of eyes within ±1.00D of achieved postoperative refraction. A total of 39 eyes (7.25%) had a refractive surprise. A total of 32 of 39 eyes were more myopic than -1.00D and 7 of them were more hypermetropic than +1.00D. There was no correlation between the mean PE and IOL type, AL, K1, K2, and IOLp. There were a positive statistically significant correlation between PE and age (r=0.095; P=0.028) and a negative statistically significant correlation between achieved SE and AL (Spearman’s r=-0.125; P=0.04), and age (r=-0.141; P=0.01). Conclusion: The IOLp calculation using the SRK/T formula with US biometry may demonstrate very good postoperative refractive outcomes in medium eyes with a few refractive surprises. Keywords: axial length, biometry, cataract surgery, IOL power calculation, prediction error, SRK/T formula

Background To evaluate how differences in ocular biometry affects the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Haigis intraocular lens power calculation formulae predictions. Methods This study was performed on 91 eyes of 91 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Ocular biometry values were measured using the IOL Master 500, and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas. We calculated the expected difference (ED) of each 3rd generation formula from the Haigis formula by subtracting the predicted refraction of the Haigis formula from the predicted refraction of each 3rd generation formula. Post-operative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was measured at 1 month after surgery using the IOL master. We calculated errors of each formula by subtracting predicted from manifest refraction at post-operative 1 month. Correlation analysis was performed between ocular biometry values, formula expectation values, formula errors and absolute formula errors. Results Multiple regression analysis revealed that preoperative ACD was the only significant factor for ED prediction in all of the 3rd generation formulas. For mean errors, axial length and post-operative 1-month change of ACD (delta ACD) correlated significantly with the errors in all 3rd generation formulas, but not with errors of the Haigis formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) of the formulas were 0.40 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.37 D for the Holladay formula, 0.34 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.41 D for the Haigis formula. The MAE of the formulas were 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Hoffer Q formula, 0.50 ± 0.50 D for the Holladay formula, 0.47 ± 0.51 D for the SRK/T formula, and 0.50 ± 0.47 D for the Haigis formula. Conclusion Regarding ED between the third generation and Haigis formulas, preoperative ACD demonstrated the greatest influence. Calculating mean absolute errors of the formulas, all IOL formulas showed excellent and comparable accuracy. Post-operative change (delta) of ACD correlated significantly with errors of third generation formulas according to simulated ACD.

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of user-adjusted axial length (AL) measured by optical biometry for intraocular lens (IOL) calculations in eyes having combined phacovitrectomy for macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Setting Ophthalmology Department, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax, United Kingdom. Design Retrospective case series. Methods Consecutive eyes having phacovitrectomy for macula-off RRD were evaluated. The ALs were measured using optical biometry with user adjustment to identify a posterior peak corresponding to the eye's AL and ultrasound (US). These were compared with each other and with the postoperative optical biometry and analyzed for accuracy as an indication of the eye's AL. Results The study comprised 22 eyes of 22 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean AL measurements derived from user-adjusted optical biometry and US AL ( P = .964). The user-adjusted optical biometry was not statistically significantly different from the postoperative optical biometry ( P = .242). Compared with the postoperative optical biometry, the IOL power was within ±0.5 diopter in 12 (92%) of 13 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.8 to 100.0) for user-adjusted optical biometry and in 10 (77%) of 13 cases (95% CI, 54.0 to 99.8) for US measurements. Conclusions User-adjusted optical biometry could be used as an alternative method for measuring AL in macula-off RRD with combined phacovitrectomy. However, optical biometry would require assessment of agreement with US AL in cases in which a posterior peak is not easily identifiable. User-adjusted optical biometry might outperform US AL when calculating IOL power; however, a larger study should be performed to confirm this. Financial Disclosure None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Objective To assess the accuracy of axial length measurements in cases of macula-off retinal detachment using different methods (optical biometry, A-scan ultrasound, and combined applanation vector-A/B-scan biometry). Methods This prospective clinical study included 100 eyes of 100 patients who underwent vitrectomy alone or phacovitrectomy for macula-off retinal detachment. All patients included signed an informed consent. Preoperative examination of the patients included recording the axial length measurements using optical biometry, A-scan ultrasound, and combined applanation vector-A/B-scan biometry. Results The mean postoperative IOLMaster axial length after macular reattachment was 26.11 ± 2.91 mm. The mean preoperative IOLMaster axial length with macula-off was 25.32 ± 2.72 mm. The mean preoperative A-scan axial length with macula-off was 25.29 ± 2.80 mm. The mean preoperative vector-A/B-scan axial length with macula-off was 26.03 ± 2.90 mm. The preoperative vector-A/B-scan mean absolute error was 0.59 ± 0.48 D (range, 0.10–2.25 D). Conclusions Regular methods (optical biometry and A-scan biometry) of measuring the axial length in cases with a detached macula proved to be variable and less accurate. The vector-A/B-scan offered good measurements of the actual axial length in the patients. This was reflected on more accurate postoperative refractive outcome.

Purpose Accurate biometry is an obligatory preoperative measurement for refractive surgery as well as cataract surgery. A new device based on partial coherence interferometry was compared with 2 currently used biometry devices. Setting Department of Ophthalmology, Saarland University Medical Center, Homburg, Germany. Design Prospective case series. Methods Eyes of cataract patients were examined with a functional prototype of the new optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer OA-2000, the standard OLCR biometer Lenstar, and the partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer IOLMaster. The results were compared using a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson correlation calculations. Results A total of 138 eyes of 74 cataract patients were examined. Pearson correlation showed excellent correlation for axial length, anterior chamber depth and keratometry among the 3 devices tested. The highest correlation was found between standard OLCR biometer and PCI biometer for AL, R1, and R2 ( r = 1.0, r = 0.936, r = 0.952, respectively; all P ≤ .001). For anterior chamber depth (ACD), the highest correlation was found between the standard OLCR biometer and the new OLCR biometer ( r = 0.943; P ≤ .001). The mean values of AL/ACD/R1/R2 differed very little, but the differences were significant (all P ≤ .05) (new OLCR biometer 23.31/3.21/7.74/7.64 mm; standard OLCR biometer 23.30/3.13/7.80/7.60 mm; PCI biometer 23.37/3.00/7.78/7.6 mm). Conclusions Compared with other clinical instruments, the new OLCR biometer generated the most accurate results. Differences especially in measurement of axial length were statistically but not clinically significant. The new OLCR biometer yielded results that correlated very well with the values of the PCI biometer and standard OLCR biometer. Financial Disclosure None of the authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Purpose To establish a new formula for intraocular (IOL) power calculation. Setting Private practice, Lynwood, California, USA. Design Retrospective observational and prospective evaluation. Methods In this 2-part retrospective observational study followed by a prospective evaluation, the postoperative anterior pseudophakic distance (APD) was correlated with the ante-nucleus distance (AND), the nucleus thickness (NT) of the cataractous lens, and the axial length. An estimated APD (EAPD) equation was established and used prospectively in a new formula on eyes scheduled for cataract surgery. Results Correlations were made in 90 operated eyes, and the EAPD equation was used in a new formula on 110 eyes scheduled for cataract surgery. Using the new IOL power formula, the median absolute error was 0.28 D with 82.7% of the eyes within ±0.50 D and 100% within ±1.00 D. Conclusions The new IOL power formula with its incorporated EAPD equation performed well. Financial Disclosure H.J.S. has a pending patent on this system and method for determining IOL lens power.

Aim The aim was to compare between the preoperative intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations accuracy measured by IOL Master vs applanation ultrasonic biometry in highly myopic and emmetropic eyes regarding postoperative refractive error. Patients and methods The IOL powers of 32 eyes of 32 patients prepared for phacoemulsification with IOL implantation were calculated preoperatively by IOL Master and A-scan. Postoperative refractive outcomes and spherical equivalent were compared with the predicted refractive error of each method. Results The mean±SD age of the 32 recruited patients was 53.91±10.21 years. The mean axial length (AXL) measured by IOL Master was higher (25.8±2.65 mm) than that with A-scan (25.46±3.43 mm), with a mean difference of 0.34±1.04 mm (P=0.2112). The mean predicted IOL power was 13.50±7.80 D with IOL Master vs 13.63±9.05 D with A-scan (P=0.930). However, no statistically significant difference was found regarding average K readings and predicted postoperative refraction (P=0.05 and 0.564, respectively). Further subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in AXL between both devices only in emmetropic group, with mean difference of 0.99±0.485 mm (P=0.00068). The mean absolute errors measured by IOL Master was 0.19±0.1417, whereas that of A-scan was 0.561±0.623. The mean difference between the two methods was −0.371 (P=0.0385), which was statistically significant. Discussion and conclusion The IOL Master AXL measurements were accurate, allowing more accurate calculation of the (IOL) power. It is user friendly, fast, with no contact with the corneal surface and with no possibility of damage to the surface or transmitting a disease.

Purpose To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with extreme myopia. Setting Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Design Prospective case series. Methods Eyes were divided into 3 axial length (AL) groups as follows: 26.0 to 28.0 mm (control), 28.0 to 30.0 mm (extreme myopia 1), and 30.0 mm or more (extreme myopia 2). The mean error (ME) 1 month postoperatively was adjusted to zero by optimizing the lens factor; then, the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were compared between formulas. Factors associated with postoperative refractive errors were analyzed. Results After optimization, the MEs of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas were 0.04 diopter (D) ± 0.48 (SD), 0.04 ± 0.66 D, and 0.04 ± 0.52 D, respectively, and the MedAEs were 0.37 D, 0.46 D, and 0.39 D, respectively (P = .044; Haigis versus Barrett: P = .038). In the extreme myopia 1 group, all 3 formulas produced small MedAEs (P = .662). In the extreme myopia 2 group, the Haigis formula produced a significantly greater MedAE than the Barrett Universal II formula (P = .007; Haigis versus Olsen: P = .055). The accuracy of the Haigis formula in myopic eyes was affected by the AL and keratometry value, whereas the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas was affected by the AL only. Conclusions In eyes with an AL of 28.0 to 30.0 mm, all 3 formulas were accurate. In eyes with AL of 30.0 mm or more, the Barrett Universal II formula was better than the Haigis formula, possibly because there were fewer influencing factors.