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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stopyra, Wiktor, Langenbucher, Achim, Grzybowski, Andrzej
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