Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science Cover Image for Volume 65, Issue 7
June 2024
Volume 65, Issue 7
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2024
Comparison of accuracy of recent IOL power formulas in short eyes
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Roo Min Jun
    Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Yujin Gim
    Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Kyung Eun Han
    Ewha Womens University Mokdong Hospital, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ewha Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Roo Min Jun None; Yujin Gim None; Kyung Eun Han None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 538. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Roo Min Jun, Yujin Gim, Kyung Eun Han; Comparison of accuracy of recent IOL power formulas in short eyes. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):538.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the accuracy of recent intraocular lens power formulas in cataract surgery patients with axial length of 22.0 mm or less.

Methods : We retrospectively analyzed 42 eyes of 32 patients underwent phacoemulsification and implantation of Tecnis ZCB00 IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision). Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF, Hoffer® QST, Kane, Pearl DGS, and Hoffer Q formulas were evaluated. Optical biometry was performed with Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland). The mean absolute error (MAE), mean numeric error(MNE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction error(PE) within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.00 D, and ±2.00 D were analyzed.

Results : Barrett universal II formula had the smallest MAE (0.29 D±0.26) and Hoffer® QST formula had the smallest MNE (-0.01 D±0.42). Barrett universal II formula yielded the highest percentage of PE within ±0.25 D (61.90%). The percentage of PE within ±0.50 D was higher in Cooke K6 (85.71%), Pearl-DGS (80.95%) and EVO 2.0 (80.95%) formula, whereas Hoffer Q formula yielded the lowest percentage (64.29%). Hoffer Q formula had the largest MAE and MNE.

Conclusions : In eye with axial length ≤ 22.0mm, the new formulas including Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, Pearl-DGS and EVO 2.0 formula showed excellent accuracy.

This abstract was presented at the 2024 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, WA, May 5-9, 2024.

 

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×