Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 4, 2025
Iris Fixation via External Pentagram Suturing
Published on: May 5, 2022
Intraocular Lens Calculation Using 8 Formulas in Silicone Oil-Filled Eyes Undergoing Silicone Oil Removal and
Christoph Lwowski1, Klajdi Miraka1, Michael Müller1
1From the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Purpose:
To evaluate formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in silicone oil (SO)-filled eyes.
Design:
Retrospective, consecutive case series.
Methods:
We conducted our study at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, and included SO-filled eyes that received SO removal combined with phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec). To evaluate the measurements, we compared the mean prediction error, and mean and median absolute prediction error of 8 different formulas.
Results:
A total of 90 eyes matched our inclusion criteria. The median absolute error was lowest in the Barrett Universal II formula (0.43 diopters [D] ± 0.75) followed by Kane (0.44 D ± 0.75), Hill-radial basis function (0.47 D ± 0.74), Holladay II (0.47 D ± 0.77), Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/theoretical (0.51 D ± 0.74), Holladay I (0.51 D ± 0.76), and Haigis and Hoffer Q (0.52 D ± 0.74 each). Regarding eyes within ±0.5 D Barrett Universal II (57.8%, 52 eyes) performed best, again followed by Kane (56.7%, 51 eyes) and Hill-radial basis function (54.4%, 49 eyes).
Conclusion:
Using modern formulas for IOL calculation in oil-filled eyes improves predictability but still not as good as in unoperated eyes. This issue is created by the change in refractive index due to the SO fill and therefore a lower precision of axial length measurement and effective lens position prediction.
