Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2020 Sep;46(9):1236-1239.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000235.

Intraocular lens formula comparison in axial hyperopia with a high-power intraocular lens of 30 or more diopters

Jack X Kane  1 , Ronald B Melles
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Intraocular lens formula comparison in axial hyperopia with a high-power intraocular lens of 30 or more diopters

Jack X Kane et al. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula predictions (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T) when using the Alcon SA60AT IOL of 30 or greater diopter (D) power.

Setting: Kaiser Permanente, California, USA.

Design: Multicenter retrospective consecutive case series.

Methods: Data from patients having uneventful cataract surgery with insertion of a ≥30 D SA60AT IOL and preoperative LENSTAR 900 biometry were included. A single eye per qualifying patient was randomly selected for inclusion in the analysis. Lens constants were optimized using a large dataset of the same IOL model including the full range of axial lengths. The optimized lens constants were then used to calculate the predicted refraction for each formula, which was compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction errors.

Results: Included in the study were 182 eyes of 182 patients. From highest to lowest, the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D was the Kane (58.8%), EVO 2.0 (57.7%), Haigis (55.5%), Holladay 2 (54.9%), Olsen (53.3%), Holladay 1 (50.5%), Hill-RBF 2.0 (43.9%), SRK/T (42.9%), Barrett Universal II (36.8%), and Hoffer Q (35.7%) formulas. The Kane formula had a statistically significant lower mean absolute prediction error compared with all formulas (P < .05) except the EVO 2.0 formula.

Conclusions: The Kane formula had the lowest prediction error of the formulas studied, which was statistically significant compared with all formulas except the EVO 2.0 formula.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Wang L, Cao D, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Calculation of axial length using a single group refractive index versus using different refractive indices for each ocular segment: theoretical study and refractive outcomes. Ophthalmology 2019;126:663–670
    1. Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:63–71
    1. Gökce SE, Zeiter JH, Weikert MP, Koch DD, Hill W, Wang L. Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017;43:892–897
    1. Wang Q, Jiang W, Lin T, Wu X, Lin H, Chen W. Meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2018;46:356–363
    1. Melles RB, Kane JX, Olsen T, Chang WJ. Update on intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology 2019;126:1334–1335

OTHER CITED MATERIAL

    1. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11979-1:2018(en), Ophthalmic implants—intraocular lenses. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:11979:-1:ed-4:v1:en. Accessed November 15, 2019
    1. Barrett G. Barrett Universal II Formula. http://calc.apacrs.org/barrett_universal2105/. Published 2018. Accessed July 13, 2019
    1. Kane JX. Kane Formula. www.iolformula.com. Published 2019. Accessed July 12, 2019
    1. Hill W. Hill-RBF Calculator Version 2.0. https://rbfcalculator.com/online/index.html. Accessed July 15, 2019
    1. Yeo TK. EVO Formula 2.0 Calculator. https://www.evoiolcalculator.com/calculator.aspx. Published 2019. Accessed July 14, 2019

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources