A comparative analysis of 12 intraocular lens power formulas
Austin Pereira1, Marko M Popovic1, Yusuf Ahmed2
1Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, 340 College Street Unit 400, Toronto, ON, M5T 3A9, Canada.
Purpose:
To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations: Barrett Universal II, EVO, Haigis, Hill-RBF version 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, SRK/T, Super Formula and T2.
Methods:
In this retrospective consecutive case series, cataract extraction and IOL implantation cases in Toronto, Canada, were recruited between 2017 and 2019. Refractive predictions were compared to the observed 1-month postoperative spherical equivalent to determine the refractive error for each formula cohort. Subgroup analysis stratified eyes into short (≤ 22.5 mm)-, intermediate (22.5 mm-25.5 mm)- and long (≥ 25.5 mm)-axial length (AL) cohorts. The primary outcome was the percentage of cases within ± 0.50D of refractive error.
Results:
Overall, 764 cataract cases were analyzed. Formulas with the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50D of refractive error, in decreasing order, were: Kane (77.7%), Barrett Universal II (77.4%), EVO (76.6%), T2 (76.4%), Super (75.9%), Holladay 1 (75.4%), Hill-RBF 2.0 (74.7%), SRK/T (72.6%), Hoffer Q (72.5%), Haigis (71.7%), Olsen (67.4%) and Holladay 2 (67.3%). For short-AL eyes, the Holladay 1 formula was most accurate (n = 69, 78.3% within ± 0.50D), and for long-AL eyes, the Barrett Universal II formula was most accurate (n = 116, 76.7% within ± 0.50D). Kane, Barrett, EVO, T2 and Super formulas led to a significantly lower mean absolute error compared to the open-source calculations with optimized lens constants (p-value: < 0.001-0.042).
Conclusions:
The Kane formula was the most accurate formula for the overall analysis. The Holladay 1 calculation was most accurate for short-AL cases, whereas the Barrett Universal II was superior for long-AL eyes.
