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
Review
. 2023 Dec;12(6):2881-2902.
doi: 10.1007/s40123-023-00799-6. Epub 2023 Sep 12.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas-A Systematic Review

Wiktor Stopyra  1 , Achim Langenbucher  2 , Andrzej Grzybowski  3
Affiliations
Review

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas-A Systematic Review

Wiktor Stopyra et al. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Barrett Universal II formula; Intraocular lens power calculation formulas; Kane formula; PEARL-DGS formula; Phacoemulsification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Wiktor Stopyra and Achim Langenbucher have nothing to disclose. Andrzej Grzybowski has Grants/Contracts from Alcon, Bausch & Lomb, Zeiss, Hoya, Thea, Viatris, Teleon, J&J, Cooper Vision, Essilor and Polpharma; consulting fees/honoraria from Thea, Polpharma, Viatris and stock with GoCheckKids.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow chart
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Kane JX, Melles RB. Intraocular lens formula comparison in axial hyperopia with a high-power intraocular lens of 30 or more diopters. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(9):1236–1239. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000235. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nemeth G, Modis L., Jr Accuracy of the Hill-radial basis function method and the Barrett Universal II formula. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(2):566–571. doi: 10.1177/1120672120902952. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stopyra W. The exactness of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for short eyes and correlation between method accuracy and eyeball axial length. Cesk Slov Oftal. 2022;78(5):236–240. doi: 10.31348/2022/24. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee AC, Quazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(1):13–17. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f1c5ad. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stopyra W. Comparison of the accuracy of six intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes of axial length exceeding 25.0 mm. J Fr Ophthalmol. 2021;44(9):1332–1339. doi: 10.1016/j.jfo.2021.04.009. - DOI - PubMed