Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Myopic Eyes with Target Refractions of Emmetropia and Intentional Myopia

Comparative accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas when targeting myopia

Purpose

This study aims to compare the accuracies of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas when targeting myopia versus emmetropia.

Methods

A total of 450 patients were included, with 225 patients targeting emmetropia and 225 patients aiming for approximately -2.0 diopters of myopia. This retrospective analysis utilized data from a single eye of each patient, with preoperative biometric measurements obtained using the IOL Master 700. The study considered established formulas such as Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T, as well as modern formulas including Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen, and PEARL-DGS. Statistical analyses, including Friedman test and post hoc analysis, were employed to compare the accuracy of each IOL power calculation formula between the two groups. Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify variables influencing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

Results

In targeting myopia, all IOL formulas tended to exhibit a greater refractive error compared to when targeting emmetropic eyes. Notably, the Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay 2 formulas were found to be highly influenced by this trend, while the modern formulas were less affected.

Conclusion

The accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas diminishes when targeting myopia in comparison to emmetropia. However, the modern formulas appear less susceptible to this trend. Consequently, when aiming for myopia, the use of the modern formulas is recommended for enhanced accuracy in IOL power calculation.

Network Meta-analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula Accuracy in 1016 Eyes With Long Axial Length

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature and quantitatively synthesize the currently available evidence to compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens calculation formulas in eyes with long axial length (AL).

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies published between January 2000 and June 2022. Included were prospective or retrospective clinical studies reporting the following outcomes in cataract patients with long AL (ie, ≥26 mm): percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D). Network meta-analysis was conducted using R software (version 4.2.1).

RESULTS

Ten prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1016 eyes and 11 calculation formulas, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 and ±0.50 D, the Olsen, Kane, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) all had insignificantly higher percentages compared with others. Considering the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D, the original and modified Wang-Koch adjustment formulas for Holladay 1 (H1-WK and H1-MWK) and EVO formulas showed superiority, but the difference was insignificant. This network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the widely used Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, the Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas had higher percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D (all odds ratios >1 but P >.05). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 D, the Olsen (96.4%), Kane (77.5%), and EVO (75.9%) formulas had the highest probability of being in the top 3 of the 11 formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

The Olsen, Kane, and EVO formulas may perform better than others in calculating IOL power in eyes with long AL. Nevertheless, there is still considerable uncertainty in this regard and the accuracy of these formulas in highly myopic eyes should be confirmed in studies based on large multicenter registries.

Intraocular lens power calculation formulas: a scientometric analysis

Background

The most accurate method of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery has not been determined, and further studies are needed to reach a consensus. The aim of this study was to assess publications related to IOL power calculation formulas, mapping their yearly trends, most productive authors, top publishing countries and institutions, and areas of specialization for IOL power formulas.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of research articles published on the topic of IOL power calculation formulas. Using PubMed, we employed appropriate search terms and filtered the results for the period of January 1, 1946, to June 28, 2023. Data were analyzed using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel programs. The visual representations of the collected data through the use of figures was provided to demonstrate the aspects of IOL power calculation research.

Results

We retrieved 5475 documents in the initial search. Analysis of these documents revealed an increase in the number of publications, from one publication in 1946 to 201 publications in 2023. The top three countries contributing to these publications were the United States, China, and Japan, collectively accounting for over 27% of the total articles. However, the two institutions with the highest contributions were located in the United Kingdom and Hungary, neither of which was among the top 10 countries in overall contributions. Overall 15 326 authors contributed to publications pertaining to IOL power calculation formulas. Among these authors, the most prolific contributors included Achim Langenbucher from Saarland University (Germany), Giacomo Savini from G.B. Bietti Foundation I.R.C.C.S. (Italy), and Kenneth J Hoffer from the University of California (United States). Saarland University emerged as the most productive institution, contributing equally to two distinct departments: the Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Center for Limbal Stem Cell Research and Congenital Aniridia, as well as the Department of Experimental Ophthalmology. The School of Physical Science at the Open University in the United Kingdom engaged in partnership with various institutions including Eye & Laser Clinic Castrop Rauxel in Germany and Johannes Kepler University Linz in Austria. Among the top 10 keywords found in the publications were "cataract", "cataract surgery", and "intraocular lens".

Conclusions

This study represents the first scientometric analysis of publications related to IOL power calculation formulas. The study offers valuable insights into the geographic distribution, contributing authors, and emphasis of research on the IOL power calculation formulas. Further cooperation is essential to pinpoint the most suitable formula and to address gaps in our current understanding.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry in Intraocular Lens Implantation Between Myopic Eyes with Emmetropia and Myopia Targets

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) for predicting postoperative refraction between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective analysis included patients with axial myopia (axial length ≥ 25.0 mm) who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery with IA to achieve emmetropia (plano to −0.5 D) or intentional myopia (−2.5 D to −5.0 D). Preoperative ocular biometry was performed in all eyes using an IOLMaster. Refractive prediction errors in IA were compared between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets. Refractive prediction errors in IA for both groups were also compared with those predicted by intraocular lens power calculation formulas including the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas.

Results

Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients with a target of emmetropia and 22 eyes of 22 patients with a target of intentional myopia were included in the final analysis. The mean numerical error was significantly different from zero (myopic trend) in myopia-targeted eyes (−0.37 ± 0.54 D, one-sample t-test, P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval: −0.61 to −0.14), while it was close to zero in emmetropia-targeted eyes. The mean absolute error was significantly smaller in emmetropia-targeted eyes (0.28 ± 0.27 D) than in myopia-targeted eyes (0.51 ± 0.41 D, P = 0.01). IA was revealed as the most accurate method for predicting postoperative refraction in eyes with emmetropia target, whereas Barrett Universal II formula was found to be the most accurate for eyes with myopia target.

Conclusion

In patients with axial myopia, the performance of IA was altered when targeting intentional myopia compared with emmetropia. Myopic shift in the refractive outcome should be considered when IA is used to target myopia.