scholarly journals Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using Anterior Chamber Depth from Two Devices with Barrett Universal II Formula

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Hannah Muniz Castro ◽  
Audrey X. Tai ◽  
Samuel J. Sampson ◽  
Matthew Wade ◽  
Marjan Farid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Chamber ◽  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
Lens Power

Purpose. To compare the preoperative measurements of the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by the IOLMaster and Catalys; additionally, to compare the accuracy of the IOL power calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula using the two different measurements. Setting. University of California, Irvine, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute in Irvine, California. Design. Retrospective comparative study. Methods. This study included 144 eyes of 90 patients with a mean age of 72.0 years (range 40.8 to 92.1 years) that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery using Catalys. Preoperative measurements of ACD were taken by the IOLMaster and Catalys. Manifest refraction and refractive spherical equivalent were measured 1 month postoperatively. Expected refractive results were compared with actual postoperative refractive results. Results. The correlation between the ACD values from the two devices was good (r = 0.80). The Catalys ACD measurements yielded a larger ACD compared to the IOLMaster, with a mean difference of 0.22 mm (P<0.0001). The correlation between the postoperative and predicted RSE of the implanted IOL power was excellent (r = 0.96). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean absolute error derived from the IOLMaster, 0.37 diopter (D) ± 0.34 (SD), and the Catalys, 0.37 ± 0.35 D (P=0.50). Conclusions. The Catalys biometry yielded a significantly larger ACD value than the IOLMaster. This difference in ACD value, however, did not reflect in a statistically significant difference in IOL power calculation and refractive prediction error using the Barrett Universal II Formula.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Highly Myopic Eyes

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yichi Zhang ◽  
Xiao Ying Liang ◽  
Shu Liu ◽  
Jacky W. Y. Lee ◽  
Srinivasan Bhaskar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Predictive Error ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Lens Power

Purpose.To evaluate and compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.00 mm.Methods.This study reviewed 407 eyes of 219 patients with AL longer than 26.0 mm. The refractive prediction errors of IOL power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer Q, and Barrett Universal II) using User Group for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB) constants were evaluated and compared.Results.One hundred seventy-one eyes were enrolled. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) and SRK/T and Haigis had similar MAE, and the statistical highest MAE were seen with the Holladay and Hoffer Q formulas. The interquartile range of the Barrett Universal II formula was also the lowest among all the formulas. The Barrett Universal II formulas yielded the highest percentage of eyes within ±1.0 D and ±0.5 D of the target refraction in this study (97.24% and 79.56%, resp.).Conclusions.Barrett Universal II formula produced the lowest predictive error and the least variable predictive error compared with the SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas. For high myopic eyes, the Barrett Universal II formula may be a more suitable choice.

scholarly journals Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in a steep cornea: A case report

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Ehab M Ghoneim ◽  
Ahmed A Hassaan
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Manifest Refraction ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Lens Power ◽  
The Right ◽  
Lens Power Calculation

There is no enough knowledge about the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in steep corneas. This study may be the first one that compares the accuracy of the SRK II formula with Holladay1, Hoffer Q and Haigis formulas in steep corneas. We reported a case of a 60-year-old female, with a cataract in the left eye and with a steep cornea. We used the modern formulas; Holladay1, Hoffer Q and Haigis. The result (+7.0D) was unexpected compared to the manifest refraction and to the IOL power calculated in the right eye using the same formulas which was (+17.0D). We implanted (+12.0D) Sensar 1-piece IOL depending on our clinical experience. The post-operative refraction was (+0.00/-1.75axis106). Postoperative, we used the patient data to find the best formula in this case. We found that the SRK II (A118) result was (+11.5D) and thus this formula was the most accurate in this case. Keywords: SRK II; Holladay1; Hoffer Q; Haigis

Comparison of accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation methods using artificial intelligence

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212199472
Author(s):  
Gabor Nemeth ◽  
Adam Kemeny-Beke ◽  
Laszlo Modis
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lens Power ◽  
Similar Accuracy ◽  
The Hill

Purpose: To assess the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on three methods using artificial intelligence (AI) and one formula using no AI. Methods: During cataract surgery on 114 eyes, one type of IOL was implanted, calculated with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method. The theoretical postoperative refractions were calculated using the Kane and the Pearl-DGS methods and a vergence based formula (Barrett Universal II, BUII). The differences between the manifest and objective postoperative refractions and the predicted refractions were calculated. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D prediction error (PE), the mean, and the median absolute errors (MAE and MedAE) were also determined. Results: The mean age of the patients was 69.48 years; the axial length was between 21.19 and 25.39 mm. The number of eyes within ±0.5/±1.0 D PE was 96/108 (84.21%/94.73%) using the Hill-RBF 2.0 method, 92/107 (80.70%/93.85%) with the Kane method, 91/107 (79.82%/93.85%) with the Pearl-DGS method, and 91/106 (79.82%/92.98%) with the BUII formula, using subjective refraction. With objective refractometric data, PEs were within ±0.5 D in 88 (77.19%), 83 (72.80%), 82 (71.92%), and 80 (70.17%) cases (Hill-RBF, Kane, Pearl-DGS, BUII, respectively). MAE and MedAE were also best with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method (0.3 D; 0.18 D). Conclusion: Better accuracy of PE might be obtained by the Hill-RBF 2.0 method compared with BUII. The Kane and Pearl-DGS methods showed similar accuracy when compared with BUII.

Effective Ocular Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (02) ◽  
pp. 94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Turczynowska ◽  
Katarzyna Koźlik-Nowakowska ◽  
Magdalena Gaca-Wysocka ◽  
Andrzej Grzybowski ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lenses ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Optical Instruments ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Ocular Biometry ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Clinical Measurements ◽  
Lens Power

Since the introduction of phacoemulsification, cataract surgery has evolved remarkably. The use of premium intraocular lenses (IOLs) (aspheric, toric, multifocal), refractive lens exchange and patients after refractive surgery procedures require extremely precise clinical measurements and IOL calculation formulas to achieve desired postoperative refraction. For many years, ultrasound biometry has been the standard for measurement of ocular parameters. The introduction of optical biometry (fast and non-invasive) has replaced ultrasound methods and is now considered as the clinical standard for ocular biometry. Recently, several modern optical instruments have been commercially launched and there are new methods available, including the empirical, analytical, numerical or combined methods to determine IOL power. The aim of this review is to present current techniques of ocular biometry and IOL power calculation formulas, which will contribute to achieve highly accurate refractive outcomes.

scholarly journals Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using Scheimpflug tomography and OKULIX ray tracing software in corneal scarring

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim Mahmoud Nabil
Keyword(s):  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Ray Tracing ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Corneal Scarring ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Lens Power

Abstract Background: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation using Scheimpflug tomography and OKULIX ray tracing software in corneal scarring. Methods: This study was conducted on 40 consecutive eyes, 20 cases with corneal scarring and coexisting cataract, and 20 controls with clear cornea, which underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and IOL implantation following Scheimpflug tomography and OKULIX ray tracing software and third generation IOL power calculation formulas for IOL power calculation. Accuracy of IOL power calculation was evaluated by subtracting expected and achieved spherical refraction 3 months postoperatively and was recorded as mean absolute error (MAE). Distance uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) for each eye was measured using Snellen chart preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively; visual acuity was scored and converted to the logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (LogMar). Results: In cases of corneal scarring, 20 eyes (100 %) yielded a postoperative spherical refraction which differed less than 1 diopter (D) from predicted, in 16 eyes (80 %) the postoperative spherical refraction was within 0.50 D from expected. The MAE was 0.2 D in cases, which did not differ significantly compared to controls (MAE 0.1 D). In corneal scarring cases, distance UCVA showed significant improvement from 1.3 Log Mar (Snellen equivalent 20/400) preoperatively to 0.5 Log Mar (Snellen equivalent 20/60) 3 months postoperatively. Conclusion: Scheimpflug tomography combined with OKULIX ray tracing software for calculation of IOL power provides accurate results in cases of corneal scarring.

Quantitative biometric cutoffs for the choice of the intraocular lens power calculation formula for a recently introduced nondiffractive extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens

2021 ◽  
pp. 112067212110655
Author(s):  
Alessandro Arrigo ◽  
Gianpiera Gambaro ◽  
Francesco Fasce ◽  
Emanuela Aragona ◽  
Innocente Figini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Chamber ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Calculation Formula ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Lens Power ◽  
Lens Power Calculation

Purpose This study aimed to analyze biometry values cutoffs for the choice of the best intraocular lens power calculation formula for AcrySof IQ Vivity intraocular lens. Methods The study was designed as interventional case series with 3 months of follow-up. Intraocular lens power calculation formulas included Barrett Universal II and SRK/T. The first was adopted for the intraocular lens power choice. The quantitative analysis focused on the identification of specific biometric cutoffs considering axial length, anterior chamber depth, and corneal powers. We included only the dominant eye in the statistical analysis. Results One hundred and eight eyes of 54 patients (23 males; mean age 62 ± 5 years) with no ocular diseases were included. Best-corrected visual acuity improved from 0.3 ± 0.2 to 0.0 ± 0.0 logMAR. All the eyes reached spectacles-free far and intermediate visions; a spherical addition of + 1.0D was necessary to adjust near vision. We identified significant quantitative cutoffs based on axial length and anterior chamber depth. Barrett Universal II resulted the best formula for eyes disclosing an axial length >25 mm, whereas SRK/T turned out to be the best choice for the eyes characterized by an anterior chamber depth <2.8 mm. Our analysis disclosed an overall sensitivity of 0.8 and a specificity of 0.7 ( p < 0.01). Conclusions Axial length and anterior chamber depth influence the choice of Barrett Universal II and SRK/T formulas. Quantitative biometric cutoffs may be useful to discriminate the best formula to be adopted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document