Background and Objectives: To compare the biometry of eyes obtained with two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers-Argos (A), using an individual refractive index, and IOLMaster 700 (IM), using an equivalent refractive index-for all structures. Materials and Methods: The biometry of 105 eyes of 105 patients before cataracts were analyzed in this study. Parameters such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and lens thickness (LT) were compared from both devices. According to the axial length measurements, patients were divided into three groups, as follows: group 1-short eyes (AL < 22.5 mm), group 2-average eyes (22.5 ≤ AL ≤ 26.0 mm), and group 3-long eyes (AL > 26.0 mm). Results: The correlation coefficiency among all compared parameters varies from R = 0.92 to R = 1.00, indicating excellent reliability of IM and A. A statistical significance in axial length was indicated in the group of short eyes (n = 26)-mean AL (A) 21.90 mm (±0.59 mm) vs. AL (IM) 21.8 mm ± (0.61 mm) (p < 0.001)-and in the group of long eyes (n = 5)-mean AL (A) 27.95 mm (±2.62 mm) vs. mean AL (IM) 28.10 mm (±2.64) (p < 0.05). In the group of average eyes (n = 74), outcomes were similar-mean AL (A) 23.56 mm (±0.70 mm) vs. mean AL (IM) 23,56 mm (±0.71 mm) (p > 0.05). The anterior chamber depth measurements were higher when obtained with Argos than with IOLMaster 700-mean ACD (A) 3.06 mm (±0.48 mm) vs. mean ACD (IM) 2.92 mm (±0.46) p < 0.001. There was no statistical significance in mean LT-mean LT (A) 4.75 mm (±0.46 mm) vs. mean LT (IM) 4.72 mm (±0.44 mm) (p = 0.054). The biometry of one eye with dense cataracts could be measured only with Argos, using the Enhanced Retinal Visualization mode. Conclusions: Axial length measurements from both devices were different in the groups of short and long eyes, but were comparable in the group of average eyes. The anterior chamber depth values obtained with Argos were higher than the measurements acquired with IOLMaster 700. These differences may be particularly important when selecting IOLs for patients with extreme AL values.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with that of older formulas, such as SRK/T and Hoffer Q, in pediatric cataract surgery.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study included 100 eyes of 100 children who underwent routine cataract surgery with primary IOL implantation in a bag. This study used four IOLMaster 700 integrated formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (BUII). In addition, the following formulas were used: EVO 2.0, Hill RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL DGS, which are available online.
UNASSIGNED: There was a statistically significant difference between SRK/T and most other formulas, except for Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, and BUII (p < 0.05). SRK/T yielded the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) of 0.63 D. This was followed by the BUII (0.66 D), Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST (0.68 D). SRK/T also yielded the highest percentage of cases within ± 0.50 D (43% of the cases). For patients aged 2 to 5 years, SRK/T formula yielded statistically significantly better results than all other included formulas (p < 0.05) with MedAE = 0.44 D, 58.33% and 87.50% of the cases were within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.0 D of intended refraction, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The SRK/T formula showed the best IOL power calculation results in pediatric cataract surgery, followed by BUII, Hoffer Q, and Hoffer QST. In children aged 2-5 years, the SRK/T formula outperformed all other formulas, followed by the BUII and Hoffer QST formulas. In children older than 5 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the different formulas (p > 0.05); Hoffer Q and SRK/T showed slightly better MedAE in this age group (5-10 years).

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas.
RESULTS: Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas (P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and enhance IOL power calculation for this patient group.

UNASSIGNED: To assess the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes using ray tracing and a range of total keratometry based IOL calculation formulae.
UNASSIGNED: Ray tracing showed excellent predictability in IOL power calculation after SMILE and its accuracy was clinically comparable with the Barrett TK Universal II and Haigis TK formula.
UNASSIGNED: Incorporating posterior corneal curvature measurements into IOL power calculation after SMILE seems prudent. The ray tracing method as well as selected TK-based formulae yielded excellent accuracy and should be favored in post-SMILE eyes.

UNASSIGNED: To compare the accuracy of multiple traditional and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-radial keratotomy (RK) patients undergoing cataract surgery.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective case series included 50 eyes with prior RK who underwent routine phacoemulsification surgery with single-piece acrylic IOL implantation (A constant = 118.8). Outcomes of multiple formulas were calculated. Included formulas were SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett True-K, Haigis and Barrett True-K (target refraction of 0.50 D), Barrett Universal II, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Shammas no history, DK SRK/T, DK SRK/T (target refraction of 0.50 D), Double K (DK) Holladay 1, and DK Holladay 1 (target refraction of 0.50 D). Averages of multiple combinations of best-performing single formulas were calculated. Primary outcome is mean absolute error (MAE).
UNASSIGNED: Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction) and DK SRK/T showed the lowest mean and median absolute errors (MedAE) followed by Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K (with -0.50 D target refraction). Combinations of 3, 4, or 5 of best performing single formulas yielded good results with >60% of cases within +0.50 D of intended refraction and MAE around 0.50 D. The best performing formulas with flatter K readings were PEARL-DGS and Haigis (with additional -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.72 + 0.71 D and 0.70 + 0.70 D, respectively, followed by Barrett True-K (with intended -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.75 + 0.63 D.
UNASSIGNED: Using an average of three or more Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction), the Barrett True-K, DK Holladay 1, and DK SRK/T formulas showed better outcomes than using a single formula for IOLMaster 700 standard K readings. The PEARL-DGS formula showed better accuracy in eyes with flatter K readings (<38 D).

In patients with eye surface disorders such as dry eye syndrome or Meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) it is necessary to improve the tear film condition in order to obtain visual system measurements before cataract surgery. The aim of the project was to analyze the Thermal Pulsation System (TPS) impact on the visual system parameters used in cataract surgery qualification. The study included six patients (11 eyes) with MGD diagnosis. All patients were treated with TPS. The obtained results were compared and used to calculate the power and type of the intraocular lens (IOL). As a treatment result, the power of astigmatism has changed in 64% of the eyes. Planned surgical treatment type has changed in 27% of cases. TPS also affected the cylinder axis in three eyes, which was 27% of cases. Based on the calculations, power of the recommended IOL has changed in five eyes (46%). Stabilization of visual system parameters after TPS allowed to improve the accuracy of the results. It also ensured the proper astigmatism treating method during cataract surgery and allowed selection of the proper IOL power and type.

UNASSIGNED: More recently, the swept-source OCT biometer-IOLMaster 700 has provided direct total corneal power measurement, named total keratometry. This study aims to evaluate whether standard keratometry (SK) and total keratometry (TK) with IOLMaster 700 can accurately reflect the corneal power changes induced by myopic corneal refractive surgery.
UNASSIGNED: In this study, the biometric data measured with the swept-source OCT biometer-IOLMaster 700 before and 3 months after the myopic corneal refractive surgery were recorded. The changes of biological parameters, including SK, posterior keratometry (PK), and TK, and the difference between SK and TK were compared. In addition, the changes of SK and TK induced by the surgery were compared with the changes of spherical equivalent at the corneal plane (ΔSEco).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 74 eyes (74 patients) were included. The changes of SK, PK, TK, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness after refractive surgery were all statistically significant (all p < 0.01), while the change of white-to-white was not (p = 0.075). The difference between SK and TK was -0.03 ± 0.10D before the corneal refractive surgery and increased to -0.78 ± 0.26D after surgery. The changes of SK and the changes of TK induced by the surgery had a good correlation with the changes of SEco (r = 0.97). ΔSK was significantly smaller than ΔSEco, with a difference of -0.65 ± 0.54D (p < 0.01). However, the difference between ΔTK and ΔSEco (0.10 ± 0.50D) was not statistically significant (p = 0.08).
UNASSIGNED: Using SK to reflect the changes induced by the myopic corneal refractive surgery may lead to underestimation, while TK could generate a more accurate result. The new parameter, TK, provided by the IOLMaster 700, appeared to provide an accurate, objective measure of corneal power that closely tracked the refractive change in corneal refractive surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to determine the most accurate formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation among five currently used formulas in eyes with phacomorphic glaucoma (PG) undergoing cataract extraction surgery.
METHODS: In this prospective interventional case series Patients diagnosed with PG were undergone uneventful phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. After 3 months, the refractive outcome for each formula was evaluated with mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentages of eyes within 0.25 D and 0.5 D of predicted error.
RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study. PEs were significantly different among the 5 formulas (P = 0.019), and Holladay I had the least error (-0.02 ± 1.11). Haigis formula had the highest hyperopic shift (0.37 ± 1.22), highest MAE (0.99 ± 0.78) and the lowest percentages of desired PEs, while the SRK II produced the greatest percentages. The overall differences in MAE between the 5 formulas were statistically insignificant (P = 0.547).
CONCLUSIONS: In some extreme situations like patients with PG, lower generation of IOL power calculation formulas may still produce more acceptable refractive outcomes.

Relative anterior microphthalmos, nanophthalmos and high-grade hyperopia are small eyes with different characteristic morphological relationships between the anterior segment and axis length. This article discusses the intraoperative challenges and surgical approaches to solutions for cataract operations in patients with one of the three named morphological alterations. Additionally, the article addresses possible comorbidities including glaucoma and preoperative planning.
UNASSIGNED: Relativer anteriorer Mikrophthalmus, hochgradige Hyperopie und Nanophthalmus bezeichnen klein gebaute Augen mit unterschiedlichem morphologischem Verhältnis zwischen Vorderabschnitt und Achsenlänge. Im Rahmen dieses Beitrags werden intraoperative Herausforderungen und chirurgische Lösungsansätze für die Kataraktoperation bei Patienten mit einer der 3 genannten morphologischen Veränderungen diskutiert. Zusätzlich wird auf mögliche, vorliegende Komorbiditäten, wie z. B. das Glaukom, und die präoperative Planung eingegangen.

Purpose: To compare on-axis measurements of the axial length (AL) with off-axis measurements in the paracentral horizontal and vertical positions using the Lenstar LS 900 biometer.Methods: In this, the samples were selected from patients scheduled for cataract surgery using a systematic randomization method. After applying the exclusion criteria, all subjects underwent optometric examinations and AL measurement using the Lenstar. Five consecutive, non-cycloplegic measurements were done on the right eye centrally, 10° temporally, 10° nasally, 10° superiorly and 10° inferiorly on the retina by the same examiner.Results: Two hundred and seven eyes were examined in this study, of which 126 (60%) were for female patients. The mean age of the participants was 64.32 ± 10.77 years (range: 34-91 years). The mean central, superior, inferior, temporal, and nasal axial AL was 23.22 ± 1.02, 23.21 ± 1.02, 23.21 ± 1.02, 23.21 ± 1.02, 23.20 ± 1.03, respectively. Comparison of these readings using repeated measures ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference in the AL value among these positions. According to the post-hoc results, superior and nasal AL was statistically significantly lower compared to the central AL.Conclusion: If on-axis biometry is not available, AL can be measured in an off-axis manner in the paracentral temporal, superior and inferior positions. Considering the marked difference in AL measurement between central and nasal positions, off-axis measurement is not recommended in the nasal part because it may be associated with a marked hyperopic shift after cataract surgery.