TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry
AU - Savini, Giacomo
AU - Di Maita, Marco
AU - Hoffer, Kenneth J.
AU - Hoffer, Kenneth J.
AU - Næser, Kristian
AU - Schiano-Lomoriello, Domenico
AU - Vagge, Aldo
AU - Di Cello, Luca
AU - Traverso, Carlo E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/6/10
Y1 - 2020/6/10
N2 - Background/aims: To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. Methods: In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Results: Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D. Conclusion: All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.
AB - Background/aims: To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. Methods: In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Results: Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D. Conclusion: All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option.
KW - lens and zonules
KW - optics and refraction
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85086774130&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85086774130&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193
DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193
M3 - Article
C2 - 32522789
AN - SCOPUS:85086774130
JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology
SN - 0007-1161
ER -