Search Results (9)

Background and Objectives: Predicting postoperative refractive development after paediatric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation remains challenging due to continued ocular growth and interindividual variability. This scoping review maps current evidence on demographic, biometric, and surgical factors influencing postoperative myopic shift in children undergoing cataract surgery with IOL implantation. Methods and Materials: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus from the last ten years through October 2025. Eligible studies included children (≤18 years) with congenital or developmental cataract undergoing primary or secondary IOL implantation that reported postoperative refractive change and its predictors. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Data were charted on study design, age at surgery, follow-up duration, refractive and biometric outcomes, and associated predictors. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Younger age at surgery, shorter preoperative axial length, and unilateral cataract consistently predicted greater postoperative myopic shift. Reported myopic change ranged from approximately −1.8 D after 2 years to −11.6 D after 15 years of follow-up, correlating with the rate of axial elongation. Optical biometry and modern formulas (e.g., Holladay 1) showed lower absolute prediction error than manual A-scan or SRK-II calculations. Postoperative complications, especially glaucoma and visual axis opacification, were associated with greater refractive change. Conclusions: Postoperative myopic shift is a predictable, age-dependent feature of paediatric pseudophakia driven primarily by ocular growth dynamics. Standardised biometry, age-stratified refractive targeting, and integration of longitudinal growth models into IOL calculation algorithms may improve refractive predictability and visual outcomes in children. Full article

Background/Objectives: Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography (SS-OCT) is a novel optical biometry technology with limited published data on its reliability compared to the gold standard, partial coherence interferometry (PCI). This study aims to assess the agreement between an SS-OCT biometer (Argos) and a PCI device (IOLMaster 500) in terms of biometry values, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and mean prediction error (ME). Methods: In this prospective comparative study, axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), flat (K1), steep (K2) and mean (Km) keratometry values, astigmatism power, J0, and J45 vector components, white-to-white distance (WTW), and IOL power calculations for nine IOL models using four formulas were compared in cataract patients. Refractive outcomes were assessed in eyes implanted with SN60WF and Panoptix IOLs, with ME calculated for each module and formula for both IOLs postoperatively. Results: This study included 133 eyes (mean age: 66.0 ± 10.95 years). Argos measured significantly higher ACD and steeper keratometry values than IOLMaster, albeit without significant differences in AL, astigmatism power, WTW, J0, and J45. Mean IOL power differences were within the clinically acceptable threshold (0.50 D), except for SN6ATx with Hoffer Q and Haigis, and Clareon with Haigis. For Panoptix and SN60WF, IOLMaster demonstrated a more hyperopic ME than Argos with SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q; however, this was without clinically significant differences. Conclusions: Argos and IOLMaster 500 presented differences in ACD, keratometry values, and IOL power calculation. However, both devices showed non-clinically significant differences in IOL power calculation and ME in the majority of formulas. Full article

Background/Objectives: The aim of this study was to report the visual and refractive outcomes of nanophthalmic eyes undergoing phacoemulsification at a tertiary cataract center. Methods: This is a prospective consecutive case series. Patients with an axial length of ≤20.5 mm who underwent phacoemulsification at a tertiary cataract center in Hong Kong were included. Eyes undergoing extracapsular cataract extraction or with a previous history of intraocular surgery including trabeculectomy were excluded. The outcome measures were the corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and refractive status at four months post-operation. Different intraocular lens formulas were used to compare the refractive outcomes. Results: Out of 22,847 cataract surgeries performed from May 2011 to March 2020, 14 eyes (0.06%) of 10 patients had axial lengths of ≤20.5 mm and underwent phacoemulsification. The mean axial length was 20.13 ± 0.44 mm. Out of these fourteen eyes, three (21%) had postoperative myopic shift with spherical equivalent refraction of more than or equal to 1D compared to the original target. Eleven eyes (79%) had postoperative refraction within 0.5D compared to the original target. Nine out of fourteen eyes (64%) had improvements in postoperative vision. There were no intraoperative complications. When comparing the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulas, there was no significant difference in the absolute errors between the five formulas (p = 0.072). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the mean absolute errors between the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulas. Myopic shift was not uncommon, and more studies on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for short eyes are warranted. Full article

A comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae, including SRK/T, HofferQ, Holladay 1, Haigis, MM, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and AS-OCT ray tracing, was performed. One hundred eyes implanted with either the Rayone EMV RAO200E (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited, Worthing, UK) or the Artis Symbiose (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL were included. Biometry was obtained using IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the target were compared, with ±0.75D considered a key metric. The highest percentage within ±0.75D was found with MM (96%) followed by the Haigis (94%) for the enhanced monofocal IOL. SRK/T (94%) had the highest percentage within ±0.75D, followed by Holladay 1, MM, BUII, and ray tracing (all 90%) for the multifocal IOL. No statistically significant difference in MAE was found with both IOLs. EVO showed the lowest MAE for the enhanced monofocal and ray tracing for the multifocal IOL. EVO and ray tracing showed the lowest MedAE for the two respective IOLs. A similar performance with high accuracy across formulae was found. MM and ray tracing appear to have similar accuracy to the well-established formulae and displayed a high percentage of eyes within ±0.75D. Full article

(1) Background: This study compares the effective lens position (ELP) and intraocular lens power (IOLP) derived from SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and Haigis formulas with the actual lens position (ALP) and the implanted IOLP after cataract surgery. Additionally, it aims to optimize ALP using a ray-tracing-based simulated optical model to achieve emmetropia. (2) Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 43 eyes implanted with the same monofocal intraocular lens (IOL). Preoperative and postoperative biometric data were collected using the Lenstar LS900. Postoperative measurements included ALP, subjective refraction, and refraction error (RE). Optical simulations (OSLO EDU 6.6.0) were utilized to optimize ALP for emmetropia (ALP_IDEAL). (3) Results: Paired t-test results between RE_OSLO-RE_OBJ (p-value = 0.660) and RE_OSLO-RE_SUB (p-value = 0.789) indicated no significant statistical differences. However, statistically significant differences were found between ALP and ALP_IDEAL (p < 0.05), with a difference of −0.04 ± 0.45 mm [ranging from −1.00 to 1.20 mm]. A significant correlation was observed between ΔALP (ΔALP = ALP − ALP_IDEAL) and RE_SUBJ. (4) Conclusions: This customized ray-tracing eye model effectively achieves refractive outcomes similar to those obtained both subjectively and objectively post-surgery. Additionally, it has enabled optical simulations to optimize the IOL position and achieve emmetropia. Full article

Objectives: The selection of an appropriate formula for intraocular lens power calculation is crucial in phacoemulsification, particularly in pediatric patients. The most commonly used formulas are described and their accuracy evaluated in this study. Methods: This review includes papers evaluating the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for children’s eyes published from 2019–2024. The articles were identified by a literature search of medical and other databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Crossref, Google Scholar) using the combination of the following key words: “IOL power calculation formula”, “pediatric cataract”, “congenital cataract”, “pediatric intraocular lens implantation”, “lens power estimation”, “IOL power selection”, “phacoemulsification”, “Hoffer Q”, “Holladay 1”, “SRK/T”, “Barrett Universal II”, “Hill-RBF”, and “Kane”. A total of 14 of the most recent peer-reviewed papers in English with the maximum sample sizes and the greatest number of compared formulas were considered. Results: The outcomes of mean absolute error and percentage of predictions within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D were used to assess the accuracy of the formulas. In terms of MAE, Hoffer Q yielded the best result most often, just ahead of SRK/T and Barrett Universal II, which, together with Holladay 1, most often yielded the second-best outcomes. Considering patients with PE within ±1.0 D, Barrett Universal II most often gave the best results and Holladay 1 most often gave the second-best. Conclusions: Barrett Universal II seems to be the most accurate formula for intraocular lens calculation for children’s eyes. Very good postoperative outcomes can also be achieved using the Holladay 1 formula. However, there is still no agreement in terms of formula choice. Full article

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang–Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy. Full article

The present study aimed to compare the accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T in the prediction of postoperative refraction for two widely used monofocal implants: SN60WF and ZCB00. All eyes were divided based on axial length (<22 mm, 22–24.5 mm, and >24.5 mm) and lens type. The mean and median of the absolute refractive error (AE) were calculated for all four formulas, using manufacturer-recommended lens constants as well as optimized constants. The subgroup analysis showed that the Barrett Universal II formula had the smallest mean absolute error in three groups (with short, medium, and long axial length) before and after lens factor optimization, and Holladay 1 had the best results in two groups (of medium and long axial length), and SRK/T in one short axial length group, as well as one medium AL group after A-constant optimization. This study hints at the versatility of the Barrett Universal II formula, a fourth-generation formula that is now widely available on most optical biometers and provides a useful tool of calculation for eyes of all axial lengths even without lens constant optimization. Full article

The present study aims to describe the use of machine learning (ML) in predicting the occurrence of postoperative refraction after cataract surgery and compares the accuracy of this method to conventional intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas. In total, 3331 eyes from 2010 patients were assessed. The objects were divided into training data and test data. The constants for the IOL power calculation formulas and model training for ML were optimized using training data. Then, the occurrence of postoperative refraction was predicted using conventional formulas, or ML models were calculated using the test data. We evaluated the SRK/T formula, Haigis formula, Holladay 1 formula, Hoffer Q formula, and Barrett Universal II formula (BU-II); similar to ML methods, we assessed support vector regression (SVR), random forest regression (RFR), gradient boosting regression (GBR), and neural network (NN). Among the conventional formulas, BU-II had the lowest mean and median absolute error of prediction. Therefore, we compared the accuracy of our method with that of BU-II. The absolute errors of some ML methods were lower than those of BU-II. However, no statistically significant difference was observed. Thus, the accuracy of our method was not inferior to that of BU-II. Full article