We have located links that may give you full text access.
Accuracy of 24 IOL Power Calculation Methods.
Journal of Refractive Surgery 2023 April
PURPOSE: To scrutinize the accuracy of 24 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in unoperated eyes.
METHODS: In a series of consecutive patients undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of the Tecnis 1 ZCB00 IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision), the following formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II, Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Holladay 2 (AL Adjusted), K6 (Cooke), Kane, Karmona, LSF AI, Naeser 2, OKULIX, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone), Panacea, PEARL-DGS, RBF 3.0, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) was used for biometric measurements. 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 prediction erros within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±2.00 D were analyzed.
RESULTS: Three hundred eyes of 300 patients were enrolled. The heteroscedastic method revealed statistically significant differences ( P < .05) among formulas. Newly developed methods such as the VRF-G (standard deviation [SD] ±0.387 D), Kane (SD ±0.395 D), Hoffer QST (SD ±0.404 D), and Barrett Universal II (SD ±0.405) were more accurate than older formulas ( P < .05). These formulas also yielded the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (84.33%, 82.33%, 83.33%, and 81.33%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Newer formulas (Barrett Universal II, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and VRF-G) were the most accurate predictors of postoperative refractions. [ J Refract Surg . 2023;39(4):249-256.] .
METHODS: In a series of consecutive patients undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of the Tecnis 1 ZCB00 IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision), the following formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II, Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Holladay 2 (AL Adjusted), K6 (Cooke), Kane, Karmona, LSF AI, Naeser 2, OKULIX, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone), Panacea, PEARL-DGS, RBF 3.0, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) was used for biometric measurements. 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 prediction erros within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±2.00 D were analyzed.
RESULTS: Three hundred eyes of 300 patients were enrolled. The heteroscedastic method revealed statistically significant differences ( P < .05) among formulas. Newly developed methods such as the VRF-G (standard deviation [SD] ±0.387 D), Kane (SD ±0.395 D), Hoffer QST (SD ±0.404 D), and Barrett Universal II (SD ±0.405) were more accurate than older formulas ( P < .05). These formulas also yielded the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (84.33%, 82.33%, 83.33%, and 81.33%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Newer formulas (Barrett Universal II, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and VRF-G) were the most accurate predictors of postoperative refractions. [ J Refract Surg . 2023;39(4):249-256.] .
Full text links
Trending Papers
Monitoring Macro- and Microcirculation in the Critically Ill: A Narrative Review.Avicenna Journal of Medicine 2023 July
Euglycemic Ketoacidosis in Two Patients Without Diabetes After Introduction of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.Diabetes Care 2023 November 22
ASA Consensus-based Guidance on Preoperative Management of Patients on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists.Anesthesiology 2023 November 21
Tranexamic Acid for Traumatic Injury in the Emergency Setting: A Systematic Review and Bias-Adjusted Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Annals of Emergency Medicine 2023 November 22
Association between postinduction hypotension and postoperative mortality: a single-centre retrospective cohort study.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2023 November 22
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app