Cargando…
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review
PURPOSE: The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated. METHODS: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL pow...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640516/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37698825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00799-6 |
_version_ | 1785146648189468672 |
---|---|
author | Stopyra, Wiktor Langenbucher, Achim Grzybowski, Andrzej |
author_facet | Stopyra, Wiktor Langenbucher, Achim Grzybowski, Andrzej |
author_sort | Stopyra, Wiktor |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated. METHODS: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms “IOL formulas,” “Barrett Universal II,” “Kane,” “Hill-RBF,” “Olsen,” “PEARL-DGS,” “EVO,” “Haigis,” “SRK/T,” and “Hoffer Q.” Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered. RESULTS: Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10640516 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Healthcare |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106405162023-11-15 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review Stopyra, Wiktor Langenbucher, Achim Grzybowski, Andrzej Ophthalmol Ther Review PURPOSE: The proper choice of an intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula is an important aspect of phacoemulsification. In this study, the formulas most commonly used today are described and their accuracy is evaluated. METHODS: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas published during the period from January 2015 to December 2022. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Web of Science, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library) using the terms “IOL formulas,” “Barrett Universal II,” “Kane,” “Hill-RBF,” “Olsen,” “PEARL-DGS,” “EVO,” “Haigis,” “SRK/T,” and “Hoffer Q.” Twenty-nine of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the largest samples and largest number of formulas compared were considered. RESULTS: Outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to evaluate the accuracy of the formulas. In most studies, Barrett achieved the smallest mean absolute error and PEARL-DGS the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in short eyes, while Kane obtained the highest percentage of patients with ±0.5 D in long eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The third- and fourth-generation formulas are gradually being replaced by more accurate ones. The Barrett Universal II among vergence formulas and Kane and PEARL-DGS among artificial intelligence-based formulas are currently most often reported as the most precise. Springer Healthcare 2023-09-12 2023-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10640516/ /pubmed/37698825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00799-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Stopyra, Wiktor Langenbucher, Achim Grzybowski, Andrzej Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title_full | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title_short | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas—A Systematic Review |
title_sort | intraocular lens power calculation formulas—a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640516/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37698825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00799-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stopyrawiktor intraocularlenspowercalculationformulasasystematicreview AT langenbucherachim intraocularlenspowercalculationformulasasystematicreview AT grzybowskiandrzej intraocularlenspowercalculationformulasasystematicreview |