Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas-A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated.

METHODS

This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms "IOL formulas," "Barrett Universal II," "Kane," "Hill-RBF," "Olsen," "PEARL-DGS," "EVO," "Haigis," "SRK/T," and "Hoffer Q." Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered.

RESULTS

Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise.

Refractive outcomes after immediate primary phacoemulsification for acute primary angle closure

This study investigated the refractive outcomes of 64 eyes overall including 32 immediate primary phacoemulsification in acute primary angle closure (APAC) eyes and 32 of their fellow eyes. We investigated best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), average keratometric diopter (K), spherical equivalent, axial length (AL), central corneal thickness, and anterior chamber depth (ACD) at preoperative examination (Pre) and more than 1-month post-phacoemulsification (1 m), and changes in values. Using SRK/T, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Hill-Radial Basis Function Version 3.0 (RBF 3.0), and Kane formulas, we calculated and compared refractive prediction error (PE), absolute value of PE (AE), and changes in K, AL, and ACD from Pre to 1 m between APAC and fellow eyes. From Pre to 1 m, K remained similar in APAC and fellow eyes (p = 0.069 and p = 0.082); AL significantly decreased in APAC and in fellow eyes (both p < 0.001); and ACD significantly increased in APAC and in fellow eyes (both p < 0.001). The change in AL differed significantly between the two groups (p = 0.007). Compared to the fellow eyes, PE with SRK/T and Barret formulas (p = 0.0496 and p = 0.039) and AE with Barrett and RBF 3.0 formula (p = 0.001 and p = 0.024) were significantly larger in the APAC eyes. Thus, attention should be paid to refractive prediction error in immediate primary phacoemulsification for APAC eyes caused by preoperative AL elongation due to high IOP.

A Comparative Study on the Accuracy of IOL Calculation Formulas in Nanophthalmos and Relative Anterior Microphthalmos

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the prediction accuracy of 6 intraocular lens (IOL) formulas, namely, the Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II and Hoffer QST formulas, in microphthalmic eyes, including those with nanophthalmos and relative anterior microphthalmos (RAM).

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Twenty-six eyes with nanophthalmos (axial length [AL] 16.84 ± 1.36 mm, range 15.25 mm-19.82 mm) and 12 eyes with RAM (corneal diameter 8.41 ± 0.92 mm, range 7.00 mm-9.50 mm) receiving cataract surgery were included. The IOL Master 500 was used for biometry; thus, lens thickness (LT) was omitted in the IOL power calculation. The mean and median arithmetic and absolute prediction errors (PEs) of the 6 original calculation formulas, the absolute PEs of the 6 formulas after optimization, and the proportion of PEs within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.5 D, ±1 D, and ±2 D with each formula were compared. The factors influencing PE were analyzed by multivariate regression.

RESULTS

In the nanophthalmos group, the overall prediction results were shifted to myopia. The original Haigis formula had the smallest median absolute PE (1.61 D, P < 0.001), and the optimized Haigis formula had the highest proportion of PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.5 D, and ±1 D. In the RAM group, the overall prediction results were not significantly different from 0 (P > .05). No significant difference was found among the formulas before optimization (P = .146) and after optimization (P = .161), but the optimized Barrett Universal II formula had the highest proportion of PEs within ±1 D and ±2 D.

CONCLUSIONS

When omitting the LT parameter in the calculation, the Haigis formula was the most accurate in cataract patients with nanophthalmos (AL <20 mm) among the 6 IOL calculation formulas, and the Barrett Universal II formula had the highest accuracy in cataract patients with RAM (corneal diameter ≤9.5 mm).

Effectiveness, Sensitivity, and Specificity of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Short Eyes

Objectives:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Comparing the accuracy of new intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes after cataract surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in short eyes for cataract surgery has been a challenge. A meta-analysis was conducted to identify, among several classic and new IOL power calculation formulae, which obtains the best accuracy.

METHODS

All studies aiming at comparing the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulae in short eyes were searched up in the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library from Jan. 2011 to Mar. 2021. Primary outcomes were the percentages of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.25D, ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D.

RESULTS

Totally 1,476 eyes from 14 studies were enrolled in comparison of 13 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Okulix, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T and T2). Pearl-DGS had the highest percentage within ± 0.25D. In the ± 0.5D range, Pearl-DGS obtained the highest percentage again, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay1, Holladay2 and Olsen (P = 0.001, P = 0.02, P = 0.0003, P = 0.01, P = 0.007, P = 0.05, respectively). In the ± 1.0D range, Okulix possessed the highest percentage, and it was significantly higher than Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Hoffer Q and Holladay2 (P = 0.0005, P = 0.03, P = 0.003, P = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The new generation formulae, based on artificial intelligence or ray-tracing principle, are more accurate than the convergence formulae. Pearl-DGS and Okulix are the two most accurate formulae in short eyes.

THE EXACTNESS OF INTRAOCULAR LENS POWER CALCULATION FORMULAS FOR SHORT EYES AND CORRELATION BETWEEN METHOD ACCURACY AND EYEBALL AXIAL LENGTH

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas and to examine the correlation of this exactness with the axial length for eyes shorter than 22.00 mm Methods: The data of hyperopic patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between October 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed. The intraocular lens power for each patient was calculated using 6 formulas (Holladay1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis and Barrett Universal II) before cataract surgery. Postoperative refraction was measured, and refractive prediction error was calculated 3 months after phacoemulsification. The correlation between axial length and absolute error was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients (62 eyes) whose ocular axial length ranged between 20.58 mm and 21.97 mm were included in the study. The Hoffer Q formula achieved the lowest mean absolute error of 0.09 (±0.08 D). A significant correlation for the Hoffer Q (&#961; = -0.329, p = 0.009) and the SRK/T (&#961; = 0.321, p = 0.011) formula was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Hoffer Q formula obtained the lowest absolute error and was recommended for intraocular lens power calculation for eyeballs with axial length shorter than 22.0 mm. 2. The correlation between axial length and absolute error is a factor which should be considered when calculating intraocular lens power.

Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths

Purpose:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of three newer generation formulae (Barrett Universal II, EVO, Hill-RBF 2.0) for calculation of power of two standard IOLs—the Acrysof IQ and Tecnis ZCB00 across all axial lengths.

Methods:

In this retrospective series, 206 eyes of 206 patients, operated for cataract surgery with above two IOLs over the last 6 months, were included in the study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained from LenstarLS900. By using recommended lens constants, the mean error for each formula was calculated and compared. Then, the optimized IOL constants were calculated to reduce the mean error to zero. Mean and median absolute errors were calculated for all eyes and separately for short (AL<22.5 mm), medium (22.5–24.5 mm), and long eyes (>24.5 mm). Absolute errors and percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were compared.

Results:

Prediction error with using recommended lens constants was significantly lower in the Barrett Universal II formula as compared to the other two formulae. However, after optimizing lens constants, there were no significant differences in the absolute errors between the three formulae. The formulae ranked by mean absolute error were as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.304 D), EVO (0.317 D), and Hill-RBF (0.322) D. There were no significant differences between absolute errors in the three formulae in each of the short-, medium-, and long-eye subgroups.

Conclusion:

With proper lens constant optimization, the Barrett Universal II, EVO, and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulae were equally accurate in predicting IOL power across the entire range of axial lengths.

Recurring themes during cataract assessment and surgery

The aim of this review was to discuss frequently encountered themes such as cataract surgery in presence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), dementia, Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery (ISBCS), discussing non-standard intraocular lens (IOL) options during consultation in the National Health Services (NHS) and the choice of the biometric formulae based on axial length. Individual groups of authors worked independently on each topic. We found that cataract surgery does improve visual acuity in AMD patients but the need for cataract surgery should be individualised. In patients with dementia, cataract surgery should be considered 'sooner rather than later' as progression may prevent individuals presenting for surgery. This should be planned after discussion of patients' best interests with any carers; multifocal IOLs are not proven to be the best option in these patients. ISBCS gives comparable outcomes to delayed sequential surgeries with a low risk of bilateral endophthalmitis and it can be cost-saving and efficient. Patients are entitled to know all suitable IOL options that can improve their quality of life. Deliberately withholding this information or pressuring patients to choose a non-standard IOL is inappropriate. However, one should be mindful of the not spending inappropriate amounts of time discussing these in the NHS setting which may affect care of other NHS patients. Evidence suggests Hoffer Q, Haigis, Hill-RBF and Kane formulae for shorter eyes; Barrett Universal II (BU II), Holladay II, Haigis and Kane formulae for longer eyes and BU II, Hill-RBF and Kane formulae for medium axial length eyes.

Changes in the Ocular Parameters of Patients with Graves' Disease after Antithyroid Drug Treatment

Background and Objectives: To find the differences in ocular axial length, keratometric measurements, and intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients with Graves’ disease (GD) after treatment with a thionamide antithyroid drug (ATD), methimazole. Materials and Methods: The medical charts of 28 patients (4 males and 24 females; mean age: 47.2 ± 21.2 years) were studied. Each patient was examined twice using an IOL Master Device and keratometry at the first visit (before ATD treatment) and after 1 month of ATD treatment. The IOL power was calculated for each patient using the Hoffer Q, SRK-2, and SRK/T formulas according to axial length. Results: After 1 month, the axial length increased (right and left eyes: p < 0.001 and p = 0.05, respectively). Based on keratometry, changes in the horizontal and vertical optical power [in diopters (D)] were not statistically significant. However, the IOL power changed after 1 month of ATD treatment in 64.3% of the patients. In 14 patients (50%), there was a 0.5–1.0 D IOL power decrease in single eyes; in two patients (7.1%), an IOL power decrease of 0.5–1.0 D in both eyes; and in two patients (7.1%), a 0.5 D IOL power increase in single eyes. The calculated IOL power values were lower after ATD treatment (right and left eyes, p = 0.010 and p = 0.018, respectively). Conclusions: The IOL power changed in 64.3% of GD patients after ATD treatment. Therefore, avoiding cataract surgery at the early stage of ATD treatment would be appropriate for selecting a more accurate IOL power.

Comparison of refractive outcomes using Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry or IOLMaster 700 keratometry for IOL power calculation

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare postoperative refractive error results using Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) Holladay equivalent keratometry readings (EKR) or IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) keratometry (K) values in IOL power calculation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 54 eyes of 31 patients who underwent cataract surgery. Preoperative biometric measurements of all patients were obtained using IOLMaster 700 followed by Pentacam measurements. IOLMaster 700 K measurements on horizontal (K1) and vertical (K2) axes and EKR measurements on 2 mm (EKR2mm), 3 mm (EKR3mm) and 4.5 mm (EKR4.5 mm) corneal zones were recorded. EKR4.5 mm value and IOLMaster 700 K values were used in Holladay-II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer-Q formulas to calculate predictive refractive error (PRE). Absolute refractive error (ARE) was calculated as the absolute difference between actual postoperative refractive error (APRE) and PRE values.

RESULTS

Mean age was 72.2 ± 8.3 (51-87) years and mean IOL power was 21.5 ± 2.9 D (18-23 D). There was no significant difference between PRE values when IOLMaster 700 K measurements and EKR4.5 mm K measurements were used in Holladay-II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer-Q formulas (p = 0.571, p = 0.833, p = 0.165, p = 0.347, respectively). There was no significant difference between APRE and ARE values (p = 0.124). According to mean ARE results, the closest estimate was achieved when the IOLMaster 700 K values were used in the Holladay-II formula (p = 0.271).

CONCLUSION

IOLMaster 700 K measurement and Pentacam EKR4.5 mm measurements can be used interchangeably. IOLMaster 700 K values yielded the most predictive measurement of the refractive result using the Holladay-II formula.

Topical Review: Causes of Refractive Error After Silicone-oil Removal Combined with Cataract Surgery

SIGNIFICANCE

This review summarizes the main factors of refractive error after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery.The post-operative refractive results of silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery are closely related to the patient's future vision quality. This report summarizes the factors that influence the difference between the actual post-operative refractive power and the pre-operatively predicted refractive power after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery, including axial length, anterior chamber depth, silicone oil, commonly used tools for measuring intraocular lens power, and intraocular lens power calculation formulas, among others. The aim of the report is to assist clinical and scientific research on the elimination of refractive error after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery.

Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry: A Review

The refractive outcome of cataract surgery is influenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devices used to measure the eye (including intraoperative aberrometry [IA]). This review aimed to cover the breadth of literature over the previous 10 years, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is the most accurate? (2) What biometry devices are available, do the measurements they obtain differ from one another, and will this cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection? and (3) Does IA improve refractive outcomes? A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database for articles on each of these topics that identified 1313 articles, of which 166 were included in the review. For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accurate formula over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum and in both the short eye (AL, ≤22.0 mm) and long eye (AL, ≥26.0 mm) subgroups. Other formulas that performed well in the short-eye subgroup were the Olsen (4-factor), Haigis, and Hill-radial basis function (RBF) 1.0. In the long-eye group, the other formulas that performed well included the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen (4-factor), or Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment. All biometry devices delivered highly reproducible measurements, and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric variables between devices. The differences seen resulted in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection. The main difference found between devices was the ability to measure successfully through dense cataracts, with swept-source OCT-based machines performing better than partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry devices. Intraoperative aberrometry generally improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surgery when the BUII and Hill-RBF, Barrett toric calculator, or Barrett True-K formulas were not used. When they were used, IA did not result in better outcomes.

[Calculation of intraocular lens power in surgical treatment of extreme hyperopia]

Accuracy of calculation of the intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with short axial length is inferior to one in emmetropic eyes. Most studies focus on relatively standard eyes.

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of power calculation for IOL used to correct extreme hyperopia and to compare available formulas based on their predictive capacity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Results of 13 implantations involving IOLs of at least 40 Diopters (D) in power were retrospectively evaluated. IOL power was calculated using five formulas: Haigis, Hoffer Q, HolladayI, SRKII, SRK/T. Mean numerical refractive prediction error (RPE) and mean absolute refractive prediction error (ARPE) were calculated. Mean and median ARPE were computed after optimizing the A₀ constant. Proportions of eyes within certain RPE limits were compared between the formulas.

RESULTS

Mean RPE ranged from 1.43 to 11.71 D before adjustment and from 1.08 to 5.34 D after adjustment (p<0.0001). Haigis formula produced the least RPE, and SRKII - the most. Pairwise comparison by mean ARPE after adjustment revealed no statistically significant difference between Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas. Comparison of formulas by percentage of eyes with minimal RPE identified Haigis and Hoffer Q as the most accurate, while the difference between the two was not statistically significant. The difference between the most accurate formulas (Haigis and Hoffer Q) and the least accurate (SRKII) was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

In eyes with extremely short anterior-posterior axis, prediction errors in IOL power calculations are relatively frequent (only 31-46% of eyes are within ±0.5 D) and warrant reduction. Among the evaluated formulas, Haigis and Hoffer Q are the most accurate. In order to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculations, it is necessary to employ personalized constants.

[Is Holladay 2 formula acurate enough for calculating intraocular lens power in non-standard eyes?]

PURPOSE

To evaluate the benefit of the Holladay 2 formula versus the 3rd generation formulae in calculating the IOL power in eyes with non-standard axial length or keratometry before cataract surgery.

PATIENTS

Retrospectiv study from January to December 2015. The inclusion critaeria were axial length (AL) <22mm or >26mm, or average keratometry <42 D or >46 D, dividing the patients in 4 groups respectively. The 7 parameters required to calculate the Holladay 2 formula were collected. The final refractive result was turned into spherical equivalent to calculate the optimal power retrospectively. Then, the results obtained using the other formulae were compared with the optimal IOL power.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six eyes operated by two surgeons were included. In the high AL group (n=32), the SRK/T was the most accurate formula; regarding the low AL group (n=36), the Hoffer Q and Holladay 2 formulae performed better; for the steep cornea group (n=27), the Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 1 and 2 formulae were not different; last, the Holladay 1 and 2 were more accurate in the flat cornea group (n=33).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the Holladay 2 formula does not seem to be better than the others for calculating IOL power in non-standard eyes. Preoperative eye features in such non-standard cases should be taken into account before the surgery to choose the more suitable formula.

A Comparative Study to Assess the Predictability of Different IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Eyes of Short and Long Axial Length

INTRODUCTION

Accurate Intraocular Lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery is very important for providing postoperative precise vision. Selection of most appropriate formula is difficult in high myopic and hypermetropic patients.

AIM

To investigate the predictability of different IOL (Intra Ocular Lens) power calculation formulae in eyes with short and long Axial Length (AL) and to find out most accurate IOL power calculation formula in both groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on 80 consecutive patients who underwent phacoemulsification with monofocal IOL implantation after obtaining an informed and written consent. Preoperative keratometry was done by IOL Master. Axial length and anterior chamber depth was measured using A-scan machine ECHORULE 2 (BIOMEDIX). Patients were divided into two groups based on AL. (40 in each group). Group A with AL<22 mm and Group B with AL>24.5 mm. The IOL power calculation in each group was done by Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay-I, SRK/T formulae using the software of ECHORULE 2. The actual postoperative Spherical Equivalent (SE), Estimation error (E) and Absolute Error (AE) were calculated at one and half months and were used in data analysis. The predictive accuracy of each formula in each group was analyzed by comparing the Absolute Error (AE). The Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare differences in the (AE) of the formulae. A statistically significant difference was defined as p-value<0.05.

RESULTS

In Group A, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulae were equally accurate in predicting the postoperative refraction after cataract surgery (IOL power calculation) in eyes with AL less than 22.0 mm and accuracy of these three formulae was significantly higher than Haigis formula. Whereas in Group B, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and Haigis formulae were equally accurate in predicting the postoperative refraction after cataract surgery (IOL power calculation) in eyes with AL more than 24.5 mm.

CONCLUSION

Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulae were showing significantly higher accuracy than Haigis formula in predicting the postoperative refraction after cataract surgery (IOL power calculation) in eyes with AL less than 22.0 mm. In eyes with AL more than 24.5 mm Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T and Haigis formulae were equally accurate.

Accuracy of Various Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Steep Corneas

Purpose:

To compare the accuracy of four different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for eyes with mean keratometry values greater than 46 diopters (D).

Methods:

Forty five eyes from 45 patients who were candidates for senile cataract surgery with mean keratometry values greater than 46 D were included. Calculation of the IOL power was performed by the Lenstar. The implanted IOL in all cases was Acrysof SA60AT. The average absolute value of the differences between the actual and predicted spherical equivalent (SE) of the postoperative refractive error (mean absolute error: MAE) was calculated using 4 formulas (Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T) with optical IOL constants from the User Group for Laser Interference Biometry constants.

Results:

The MAE was smallest in the SRK/T formula (0.39 D ± 0.35) followed by those of the Holladay 1 (0.44 D ± 0.32), Haigis (0.45 D ± 0.35) and Hoffer Q (0.5 D ± 0.38) formulas. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the MAE among different formulas. The SRK/T formula predicted more eyes within ± 0.5 D of the SE (77.8%) compared to other formulas.

Conclusion:

In eyes with steep corneas, there were no statistically significant differences among the accuracies of the four common IOL power calculation formulas.

Performance of the SRK/T formula using A-Scan ultrasound biometry after phacoemulsification in eyes with short and long axial lengths

BACKGROUND

The SRK/T formula is one of the third generation IOL calculation formulas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the SRK/T formula in predicting a target refraction ±1.0D in short and long eyes using ultrasound biometry after phacoemulsification.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective analysis, which included 38 eyes with an AL < 22.0 mm (short AL), and 62 eyes ≥24.6 mm (long AL) that underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification. Preoperative AL was measured by ultrasound biometry and SRK/T formula was used for IOL calculation. Three different IOLs were implanted in the capsular bag. The prediction error was defined as the difference between the achieved postoperative refraction, and attempted predicted target refraction. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS V21.

RESULTS

In short ALs, the mean age was 65.13 ± 9.49 year, the mean AL was 21.55 ± 0.45 mm, the mean K1 and K2 were 45.76 ± 1.77D and 46.09 ± 1.61D, the mean IOL power was 23.96 ± 1.92D, the mean attempted (predicted) value was 0.07 ± 0.26D, the mean achieved value was 0.07 ± 0.63 D, the mean PE was 0.01 ± 0.60D, and the MAE was 0.51 ± 0.31D. A significant positive relationship with AL and K1, K2, IOL power and a strong negative relationship with PE and achieved postoperative was found. In long ALs, the mean age was 64.05 ± 7.31 year, the mean AL was 25.77 ± 1.64 mm, the mean K1 and K2 were 42.20 ± 1.57D and 42.17 ± 1.68D, the mean IOL power was 15.79 ± 5.17D, the mean attempted value was -0.434 ± 0.315D, the mean achieved value was -0.42 ± 0.96D, the mean PE was -0.004 ± 0.93D, the MAE was 0.68 ± 0.62D. A significant positive relationship with AL and K1, K2 and a significant positive relationship with PE and achieved value, otherwise a negative relationship with AL and IOL power was found. There was a little tendency towards hyperopic for short ALs and myopic for long ALs. The majority of eyes (94.74 %) for short ALs and (70.97 %) for long ALs were within ±1 D of the predicted refractive error. No significant relationship with PE and IOL types, AL, K1, K2, IOL power, and attempted value, besides with MAE and AL, K1, K2, age, attempted, achieved value were found in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The SRK/T formula performs well and shows good predictability in eyes with short and long axial lengths.