Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods for post-myopic excimer laser surgery patients without previous refractive surgery data using the Holladay IOL Consultant Program and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) IOL Power Calculator.
Setting: Wang Vision Cataract and LASIK Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Design: Case series.
Methods: Eight methods were used to calculate IOL power: Holladay 2 partial coherence interferometry (PCI)-K, Holladay 2 FlatK, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas No-History, Haigis-L, ASCRS-Average, ASCRS-Min, and ASCRS-Max. The optimum IOL power corresponding to the target refraction was back-calculated using the stable post-cataract surgery refraction and implanted IOL power. Using the optimum IOL power, the predicted IOL power error and the resultant refractive error with each method were calculated and compared.
Results: The Holladay 2 FlatK method was most accurate for IOL power calculation, followed by the Holladay 2 PCI-K, ASCRS-Min, Wang-Koch-Maloney, ASCRS-Average, Shammas No-History, Haigis-L, and ASCRS-Max. Statistically significant differences were observed between Holladay 2 FlatK and Holladay 2 PCI-K (P<.05), Wang-Koch-Maloney and ASCRS-Average (P<.05), and Haigis-L and ASCRS-Max (P<.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between the Holladay 2 PCI-K, ASCRS-Min, and Wang-Koch-Maloney or between the ASCRS-Average, Shammas No-History, and Haigis-L (both P>.05).
Conclusions: The Holladay 2 FlatK method provided the most accurate IOL power in eyes without previous myopic laser surgery data. If the Holladay IOL Consultant Program is unavailable, the ASCRS methods can be used; the ASCRS-Min represents the most accurate method.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.03.032 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation in a Non-diffractive Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lens After Myopic LASIK.
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany and.
Purpose: To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation of a non-diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) without historical data.
Methods: In this consecutive case series, patients who had undergone lens surgery with implantation of a non-diffractive EDOF IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, were included. Preoperative assessments included biometry and tomography using Scheimpflug technology (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH).
Accuracy of PEARL-DGS Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Patients With Previous Myopic Laser Vision Correction.
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From the Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Purpose: To determine the accuracy of a new machine learning-based open-source IOL formula (PEARLS-DGS) in 100 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery and had a history of laser refractive surgery for myopic defects.
Methods: The setting for this retrospective study was HUMANITAS Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. Data from 100 patients with a history of photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of the formula.
Influence of Manufacturing Tolerance and Formula Thickness Type in the Prediction Error of Multifocal Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology of VITHAS Almería Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Purpose: To assess differences in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation prediction error (PE) considering the manufacturing tolerance or exact power (EP) versus labeled power (LP), and to compare accuracy using the Barrett formula with optimized constant versus a thick-lens formula.
Methods: The PE and absolute PE were calculated for a random eye of patients implanted with the multifocal Liberty Q-Flex 640PM IOL (Medicontur Ltd) considering the LP and the EP provided by the manufacturer. The outcomes for the Barrett with optimized constant formula and a thick-lens formula personalized for the surgeon, biometer, and IOL were compared.
Intraocular lens power calculation in post-myopic-LASIK eyes: comparison of two different corneal refractive power measurements by Pentacam.
Eye (Lond)
September 2025
Department of Ophthalmology, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Eye and ENT Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Objectives: To compare the accuracy of two different corneal refractive power measurements in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.
Methods: Post-myopic-LASIK patients scheduled for cataract surgery were enrolled. Corneal refractive power centred on corneal apex (K) and pupil centre (K), decentration of ablation zone, and Kappa angle were measured by Pentacam.
Refractive Outcomes Using Simulated Keratometry Versus Keratometry From an Optical Biometer.
Am J Ophthalmol
September 2025
Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Electronic address:
Purpose: To compare refractive prediction accuracy using simulated keratometry (SimK) measurements obtained from a Scheimpflug tomographer (Pentacam AXL, Oculus) versus keratometry (K) measurements obtained from an optical biometer utilizing telecentric keratometry (IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700), Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) applied to modern IOL power calculation formulas.
Design: Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis METHODS: Setting: Private practice center STUDY POPULATION: Five hundred eighty-nine eyes with preoperative SimK and K measurements undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of monofocal IOL (Clareon SY60WF IOL, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.).