98%
921
2 minutes
20
These days, accurate calculation of artificial lenses is an important aspect of patient management. In addition to the classic theoretical optical formulae there are a number of new approaches, most of which are available as online calculators. This review aims to explain the background of artificial lens calculation and provide an update on study results based on the latest calculation approaches. Today, optical biometry provides the computational basis for theoretical optical formulae, ray tracing, and also empirical approaches using artificial intelligence. Manufacturer information on IOL design and IOL power recorded as part of quality control could improve calculations, especially for higher IOL powers. With modern measurement data, there is further potential for improvement in the determination of the axial length to the retinal pigment epithelium and by adopting a sum-of-segment approach. With the available data, the cornea can be assumed to be a thick lens. The Kane formula, the EVO 2.0 formula, the Castrop formula, the PEARL-DGS, formula and the OKULIX calculation software provide consistently good results for artificial lens calculations. Excellent refractive results can be achieved using these tools, with approximately 80% having an absolute prediction error within 0.50 dpt, at least in highly selected study populations. The Barrett Universal II formula also produces excellent results in the normal and long axial length range. For eyes with short axial lengths, the use of Barrett Universal II should be reconsidered; in this case, one of the methods mentioned above is preferable. Second Eye Refinement can also be considered in this patient population, in conjunction with established classic third generation formulae.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1896-0738 | DOI Listing |
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.).