Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 21, 2026
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone LASIK
Li Wang1, Marc A Booth, Douglas D Koch
1Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
Objective:
To compare methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power for cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone myopic LASIK.
Design:
Noncomparative case series.
Participants:
Eleven eyes of 8 patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK (amount of LASIK correction [+/-standard deviation], -5.50+/-2.61 diopters [D]; range, -8.78 to -2.38 D) and subsequently phacoemulsification with implantation of the SA60AT IOLs (Alcon Surgical, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) were included (refractive error after cataract surgery, -0.61 +/- 0.79 D; range, -2.0 to 1.0 D).
Methods:
We evaluated the accuracy of various combinations of: (1) single-K versus double-K (in which pre-LASIK keratometry is used to estimate effective lens position) versions of the IOL formulas; the Feiz-Mannis method was also evaluated; (2) 4 methods for calculating corneal refractive power (clinical history, contact lens overrefraction, adjusted effective refractive power [EffRP(adj)], and Maloney methods); and (3) 4 IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Holladay 2). The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the IOL power calculated using various methods from the power of the implanted IOL, and the F test for variances was performed to assess the consistency of the prediction performance by different methods.
Main Outcome Measures:
Mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute IOL prediction error, and variance of the IOL prediction error.
Results:
Compared with double-K formulas, single-K formulas predicted lower IOL powers than the power implanted and would have left patients hyperopic in most cases; the Feiz-Mannis method had the largest variance. For the Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas, the variances for EffRP(adj) were significantly smaller than those for the clinical history method (0.43 D2 vs. 1.74 D2, P = 0.018 for Hoffer Q; 0.75 D2 vs. 2.35 D2, P = 0.043 for Holladay 1). The Maloney method consistently underestimated the IOL power but had significantly smaller variances (0.19-0.55 D2) than those for the clinical history method (1.09-2.35 D2; P<0.015). There were no significant differences among the variances for the 4 formulas when using each corneal power calculation method.
Conclusions:
The most accurate method was the combination of a double-K formula and corneal values derived from EffRP(adj). The variances in IOL prediction error were smaller with the Maloney and EffRP(adj) methods, and we propose a modified Maloney method and second method using Humphrey data for further evaluation.
