Accuracy of new and standard intraocular lens power calculations formulae in Saudi pediatric patients

A Comprehensive Evaluation of 16 Old and New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Eyes

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of 16 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract eyes.

Patients and Methods

The data records of pediatric patients who had been implanted with three IOL models (SA60AT, MA60AC, and enVista-MX60) between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed. The accuracy of 16 IOL power calculation methods was evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, LSF AI, Naeser 2, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The non-optimized (ULIB/IOLcon) and optimized constants were used for IOL power calculation. The mean prediction error (PE), Performance Index (FPI), and all descriptive statistics were calculated.

Results

Ninety-seven eyes of 97 pediatric patients aged 13.2 (IQR 11.2-17.1) were included. No statistically significant difference (HS-test) was observed (p > 0.818) except for the Hoffer Q, and Naeser 2 (P = 0.014). With optimized lens constants, the best FPI indices were obtained by Hoffer Q (0.256) and VRF-G (0.251) formulas, followed by Hill-RBF 3.0 and BUII, with an index of 0.248. The highest FPI indices with non-optimized constants showed SRK/T and T2 formulas (0.246 and 0.245, respectively), followed by VRF-G and Holladay 1, with an index of 0.244. The best median absolute error values (MedAE) were achieved by Hoffer Q (0.50 D), VRF-G (0.53 D), and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D), all P ≥ 0.074.

Conclusion

Our results place the Hoffer Q, VRF-G, Hill-RBF 3.0, and BUII formulas as more accurate predictors of postoperative refraction in pediatric cataract surgery.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Children-A Systematic Review

Objectives: The selection of an appropriate formula for intraocular lens power calculation is crucial in phacoemulsification, particularly in pediatric patients. The most commonly used formulas are described and their accuracy evaluated in this study. Methods: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for children's eyes published from 2019-2024. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Google Scholar) using the combination of the following key words: "IOL power calculation formula", "pediatric cataract", "congenital cataract", "pediatric intraocular lens implantation", "lens power estimation", "IOL power selection", "phacoemulsification", "Hoffer Q", "Holladay 1", "SRK/T", "Barrett Universal II", "Hill-RBF", and "Kane". A total of 14 of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the maximum sample sizes and the greatest number of compared formulas were considered. Results: The outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to assess the accuracy of the formulas. In terms of MAE, Hoffer Q yielded the best result most often, just ahead of SRK/T and Barrett Universal II, which, together with Holladay 1, most often yielded the second-best outcomes. Considering patients with PE within ±1.0 D, Barrett Universal II most often gave the best results and Holladay 1 most often gave the second-best. Conclusions: Barrett Universal II seems to be the most accurate formula for intraocular lens calculation for children's eyes. Very good postoperative outcomes can also be achieved using the Holladay 1 formula. However, there is still no agreement in terms of formula choice.

IOL calculation using six formulas in children undergoing lens extraction and primary IOL implantation with and without posterior optic capture

PURPOSE

To evaluate formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in children undergoing lens extraction and IOL implantation.

METHODS

Retrospective, consecutive case series at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. We included eyes that received lens extraction and IOL implantation (SN60AT, Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) due to congenital or juvenile cataract. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster 500/700, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany). To evaluate the measurements, we compared the mean prediction error (MPE), mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE, MedAE) of six different formulas, and number of eyes within ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 2.0D of target refraction. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured by retinoscopy 4-12 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

66 eyes matched our inclusion criteria with a mean age of 6.3 years ± 3.2. MedAE was lowest in SRK/T (0.55D ± 1.08) followed by Holladay I (0.75D ± 1.00), EVO 2.0 (0.80D ± 0.89), Barrett Universal II (BUII, 0.86D ± 1.00), Hoffer Q (0.97 D ± 0.94), and Haigis (1.10D ± 0.95). Regarding eyes within ± 0.5D SRK/T (45.5.%, 30 eyes) performed best, followed by Holladay I (36.4%, 24 eyes), EVO 2.0 and BUII (each 34.8%, 23 eyes). There was a myopic shift seen in all formulas (MPE: -0.21 to -0.90D).

CONCLUSION

Using modern formulas, or even AI formulas, for IOL calculation in children's eyes does barely improve predictability of the postoperative refraction. A myopic shift can be found for all formulas. However, specific formulas like SRK/T seem to better anticipate this.

Refractive predictive errors using Barrett II, Hoffer-Q, and SRKT formulae for pediatric IOL implantation

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the Barrett II universal (BU II) formula, Hoffer-Q, and SRKT formulae following lensectomy and IOL implantation in a large pediatric cohort.

METHODS

Retrospective study of children who underwent lensectomy and IOL implantation between 2015 and 2023 at Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one eyes of 104 children aged 6.0 ± 3.9 years were included. The mean prediction error (PE) was - 0.08 ± 1.54 diopters (D) with BU II, 0.24 ± 1.46 D with Hoffer-Q, and 0.71 ± 1.92 D with SRKT (P = 0.10). In eyes with axial length (AL) < 22 mm, BU II and Hoffer-Q had a smaller PE than SRKT (P = 0.024). In eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, BU II had a smaller PE than Hoffer-Q (P = 0.048). In children 24 months or older at surgery, BU II had a smaller PE than SRKT and Hoffer-Q (P = 0.012). However, in younger children, no difference was found between the formulae (P = 0.61). For mean k-values ≥ 44.5 D, BU II and Hoffer-Q had a smaller PE than SRKT (P = 0.002). An absolute prediction error < 1.0 D was obtained with BU II in 66% of eyes and SRKT in 35% (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The BU II formula performed well with a small prediction error. No significant difference in PE was detected overall between the formulae. However, only BU II demonstrated a stable prediction error at varying axial lengths, K-readings, and ages. As the biometric parameters of the developing eye change with growth, the BU II formula offers a reliable and stable option for pediatric IOL calculation.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of intraocular lens power calculation methods for paediatric cataract eyes

The study aimed to compare and rank the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in paediatric eyes in a systematic way. A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE by December 2021. Combined with traditional and network meta-analysis, we analysed the percentages of paediatric eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 dioptres (D) and ±1.00 D as the outcome measurements among different formulas. Subgroup analyses stratified by age were also undertaken. Thirteen studies with 1781 eyes comparing 8 calculation formulas were included. For the traditional meta-analysis results, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff theoretical (SRK/T) (risk ratios (RR), 1.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.30) performed significantly better than the SRKII formula for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.50 D. In addition, SRK/T (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18) and Holladay 1(RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) both performed significantly better than the SRKII formula for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D. Considering the ranking based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) by Bayesian method, the top four formulas were Barrett Universal II (UII), Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T on the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D, whereas the top four formulas were Barrett UII, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas on the percentage of PE within ±1.00D. Concerning both outcome measurements of rank probabilities, the top three Barrett UII, SRK/T, and Holladay 1 formulas were considered to provide more accuracy for IOL power calculation in paediatric cataract eyes, and Barrett UII tends to perform better in older children.

Accuracy of newer generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of newer generation intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (EVO 2.0 and Kane) with established formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis and SRK/T) in pediatric cataract patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study. We enrolled 110 eyes (110 patients) in Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. All patients underwent uneventful cataract surgery and implanted with posterior chamber IOL in the bag. We calculate the mean prediction errors (PE) and percentage within 1 diopter (D) at 1 month to assess the accuracy, and percentage > 2D was defined as prediction accident. Then, we performed subgroup analysis according to age and axial length (AL).

RESULTS

The mean age and AL were 37.45 ± 23.28 months and 21.16 ± 1.29 mm. The mean PE for all patients was as follows: Barrett (- 0.30), EVO (0.18), Haigis (- 0.74), Kane (- 0.36), and SRK/T (0.58), p < 0.001. In addition, EVO and SRK/T formulas were relatively accurate in patients younger than 24 months and with AL ≤ 21 mm, while EVO got lower prediction accident rate than SRK/T (3/41 vs 8/41, 4/52 vs 5/52). Moreover, Barrett, EVO, and Kane formulas achieved better accuracy and lower prediction accident rate in patients older than 24 months and with AL > 21 mm (both > 51/69 and 43/58, and < 3/69 and 3/58).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients older than 24 months and with AL > 21 mm, Barrett, EVO, and Kane formulas were relatively accurate, while in patients younger than 24 months and with AL ≤ 21 mm, EVO was more accurate, followed by SRK/T formula.

Evaluation of IOL power calculation with the Kane formula for pediatric cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in the pediatric population.

METHODS

The charts of pediatric patients who underwent cataract surgery with in-the-bag IOL implantation with one of two IOL models (SA60AT or MA60AC) between 2012 and 2018 in The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, CanFada, were retrospectively reviewed. The accuracy of IOL power calculation with the Kane formula was evaluated in comparison with the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff Theoretical (SRK/T) formulas.

RESULTS

Sixty-two eyes of 62 patients aged 6.2 (IQR 3.2-9.2) years were included. The SD values of the prediction error obtained by Kane (1.38) were comparable with those by BUII (1.34), Hoffer Q (1.37), SRK/T (1.40), Holaday 1 (1.41), and Haigis (1.50), all p > 0.05. A significant difference was observed between the Hoffer Q and Haigis formulas (p = 0.039). No differences in the median and mean absolute errors were found between the Kane formula (0.54 D and 0.91 ± 1.04 D) and BUII (0.50 D and 0.88 ± 1.00 D), Hoffer Q (0.48 D and 0.88 ± 1.05 D), SRK/T (0.72 D and 0.97 ± 1.00 D), Holladay 1 (0.63 D and 0.94 ± 1.05 D), and Haigis (0.57 D and 0.98 ± 1.13 D), p = 0.099.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to investigate the Kane formula in pediatric cataract surgery. Our results place the Kane among the noteworthy IOL power calculation formulas in this age group, offering an additional means for improving IOL calculation in pediatric cataract surgery. The heteroscedastic statistical method was first implemented to evaluate formulas' predictability in children.

Comparison of the Barrett Universal II formula to previous generation formulae for paediatric cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II (BUII) five-variable formula to previous generation formulae in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following paediatric cataract extraction.

METHODS

Retrospective study of consecutive paediatric patients who underwent uneventful cataract extraction surgery along with in-the-bag IOL implantation between 2012 and 2018 in the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The accuracy of five different IOL formulae, including the BUII, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay I, Hoffer Q and Haigis, was evaluated. Constant optimization was performed for each IOL and for each formula separately. Mean prediction error (PE) and the mean and median absolute PE (APE) were calculated for the five different IOL formulae investigated.

RESULTS

Sixty-six eyes of 66 children (59% males) with a median age at surgery of 6.2 years (IQR, 3.2-9.2 years) were included in the study. The mean IOL power that was implanted was 23.3 ± 5.1 D (range; 12.0-39.0 D). Overall, the BUII had a comparable median APE to the Hoffer Q, Holladay I, SRK/T and Haigis formulae (BUII: 0.49D versus 0.48D, 0.61D, 0.74D and 0.58D respectively; p = 0.205). The BUII, together with Hoffer Q, produced better predictability within 0.5D from target refraction compared with the SRK/T formula (BUII:51.5%, Hoffer Q:51.5% versus SRK/T:31.8%, p = 0.002 for both).

CONCLUSION

The BUII formula had comparable accuracy to other tested formulae and outperformed the SRK/T formula, when calculating IOL power within the 0.5D range from target refraction in paediatric eyes undergoing cataract surgery with in-the-bag IOL implantation.

Update on Intraocular Lens Formulas and Calculations

Investigators, scientists, and physicians continue to develop new methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation to improve the refractive accuracy after cataract surgery. To gain more accurate prediction of IOL power, vergence lens formulas have incorporated additional biometric variables, such as anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, white-to-white measurement, and even age in some algorithms. Newer formulas diverge from their classic regression and vergence-based predecessors and increasingly utilize techniques such as exact ray-tracing data, more modern regression models, and artificial intelligence. This review provides an update on recent literature comparing the commonly used third- and fourth-generation IOL formulas with newer generation formulas. Refractive outcomes with newer formulas are increasingly more and more accurate, so it is important for ophthalmologists to be aware of the various options for choosing IOL power. Historically, refractive outcomes have been especially unpredictable in patients with unusual biometry, corneal ectasia, a history of refractive surgery, and in pediatric patients. Refractive outcomes in these patient populations are improving. Improved biometry technology is also allowing for improved refractive outcomes and surgery planning convenience with the availability of newer formulas on various biometry platforms. It is crucial for surgeons to understand and utilize the most accurate formulas for their patients to provide the highest quality of care.