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 the accuracy of the web-based ESCRS intraocular lens power calculator formulas
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nahyun Park
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Changmin Kim
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Ho Seok Chung
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Eun-Ah Ye
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Jae Yong Kim
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Hun Lee
    Ophthalmology department, Asan Medical Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
    Ophthalmology department, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Nahyun Park None; Changmin Kim None; Ho Seok Chung None; Eun-Ah Ye None; Jae Yong Kim None; Hun Lee None
  • Footnotes
    Support  This work was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund, granted by the Korean government (the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety), (Project number: 1711194198, RS-2020-KD000148); by the Korean Fund for Regenerative Medicine, funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT; the Ministry of Health and Welfare (21C0723L1-13, Republic of Korea); by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (RS-2023-00214125); and by a grant from the Asan Institute for Life science, Asan Medical Center, Korea (2021IP0061-3).
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2024, Vol.65, 543. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Nahyun Park, Changmin Kim, Ho Seok Chung, Eun-Ah Ye, Jae Yong Kim, Hun Lee; Comparison of the accuracy of the web-based ESCRS intraocular lens power calculator formulas. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2024;65(7):543.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the accuracy of conventional intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and modern ESCRS IOL calculator formulas using refractive prediction error in cataract surgeries

Methods : This retrospective study included 48 eyes from 48 patients who underwent a routine cataract surgery. The study compared the refractive outcomes predicted by four formulas on IOLmaster700 (Barrett Universal II (BUII), SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay2) and seven formulas on web-based ESCRS IOL power calculator (BUII, Cooke K6, EVO2.0, Hill-RBF3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and Pearl-DGS). Preoperative and postoperative parameters including uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, manifest refraction (MR), autorefraction (AR), autokeratometry (ARK), lens tilt, decenteration, and central corneal thickness were also measured. The correlations between the refractive prediction error calculated by each formula and the above-mentioned parameters were analyzed using linear regression models.

Results : The absolute prediction errors calculated by all formulas were not significantly different at 1-month and 6-month post-op (P=0.585 by AR at 1-month post-op; P=0.361 by MR at 1-month post-op; P=0.207 by AR at 6-month at post-op; P=0.261 by MR at 6-month post-op). The Kane, EVO2.0, and Cooke K6 formulas showed a higher percentage of refractive prediction errors within 0.25 diopters(D) or 0.50D by AR at 6-month post-op (P<0.001 for each circumstance). The Kane formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index (FPI), followed by EVO2.0, BUII (ESCRS calculator and IOLmaster700), Pearl-DGS, Cooke K6, Hoffer QST, and Hill-RBF3.0 by AR at 6-month post-op, while the Cooke K6 formula showed the highest IOL FPI, followed by Pearl-DGS, EVO, Kane, BUII (ESCRS calculator), Hill-RBF3.0, BUII (IOLmaster700), SRK/T, and Holladay by MR at 6-month post-op. The prediction errors calculated by all the formulas were significantly correlated with the mean keratometry values obtained from ARK and IOLmaster700. Additionally, the prediction errors calculated by SRK/T and Haigis had significant correlation with the lens thickness.

Conclusions : When comparing the accuracy of IOL formulas from the IOLmaster 700 and from the web-based ESCRS IOL power calculator, all of the formulas have comparable prediction accuracy, while the Kane, EVO2.0 and, Cooke K6 formulas have a higher percentage of lower prediction errors.

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.

×