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).

To evaluate a method using measured values of total corneal refractive power (TCRP) for a manufacturer\'s online calculator by comparing it with the Barrett toric calculator (BTC) and Kane toric calculator (KTC) combined with simulated keratometry values (SimK).
This was a retrospective case series. Patient records were reviewed to identify the patients who had biometry with the IOL Master 700 and Pentacam recorded before toric IOL implantation and refractive follow-up data after implantation. The predicted error in residual astigmatism was calculated by vector analysis according to the calculation methods and the measurements used.
A total of 70 eyes of 56 patients were included. The mean absolute astigmatism prediction errors were 0.6 ± 0.32, 0.59 ± 0.35, and 0.61 ± 0.35 D for the ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators, respectively (P = 0.934), and the centroid of the prediction errors were 0.3 D @ 178°, 0.11 D @ 102°, and 0.09 D @ 147°, respectively (P = 0.23). In the with-the-rule subgroup, the centroid of the prediction error was 0.34 D @ 176° for ATCTCRP and was the highest among the three calculation methods (P = 0.046).
The ATCTCRP, BTCSimK, and KTCSimK calculators had similar performance with regards to their astigmatism prediction accuracy. The ATCTCRP calculator combined with 4.0-mm apex/ring readings of TCRP was slightly intended to result in against-the-rule residual astigmatism.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the clinical and refractive outcomes of eyes with long axial length (AL) and high myopia that underwent cataract surgery and compare the performance of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulae on these eyes.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort included 183 eyes that underwent cataract surgery from January 2010 to December 2018. Demographics, AL, postoperative best-visual acuities, IOL power data, and postoperative complications were recorded. Refractive outcomes were analyzed and absolute predicted errors were compared between five IOL calculation formulas.
RESULTS: The mean age included in the study was 65.4 ± 9.39 years with a mean AL of 26.76 ± 1.75 mm. Postoperatively, the mean sphere, cylinder, and manifest refraction spherical equivalent were 0.22 D ± 0.54, -0.78 D ± 0.50, and - 0.16 D ± 0.50, respectively. The average IOL power implanted was 11.12 D ± 4.59 D. No intraoperative complications were encountered, but there was one incidence of retinal tear with detachment reported postoperatively (0.55%). The Kane formula had the lowest mean absolute predicted error (MAE). A significant positive correlation between increasing AL and MAE was seen in the Sanders, Retzlaff and Kraft-Theoretical (SRK-T) and Ladas formulae but not statistically significant when the Kane, Barrett Universal II, and the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formulae were used.
CONCLUSIONS: Cataract surgery in eyes with long ALs and high myopia is safe with a low incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The Kane, Barrett, and EVO formulae were equally accurate in calculating the IOL power and achieved the least amount of residual error postoperatively.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate the accuracy of Okulix ray-tracing software in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in the long cataractous eyes and comparing the results with those obtained from Kane, Holladay 1 with optimized constant, SRK/T with optimized constant, Haigis with optimized constant, and Barret Universal 2 formulas.
UNASSIGNED: The present study evaluates the refractive results of cataract surgery in 85 eyes with axial length > 25 mm and no history of ocular surgery and corneal pathology. IOL power calculation was performed using the Okulix software. The performances of Okulix software in comparison with the five other formulas were evaluated by predicted error, mean absolute error, and mean numerical error 6 months after surgery.
UNASSIGNED: The mean calculated IOL power by the Okulix software was +13.48 ± 4.19 diopter (D). The mean of the 6-month postoperative sphere and spherical equivalent were +0.18 ± 0.63 and -0.34 ± 0.78 D, respectively. Also, the 6-month spherical equivalent in 56.6% and 80% of eyes were within ±0.05 and ±1.00 D, respectively. The predicted error (P < 0.001) and the mean numerical error (P < 0.001) were different between the six studied methods; however, we were not able to find any significant differences in the mean absolute error among six studied methods (P: 0.211).
UNASSIGNED: The present study showed acceptable performance of the Okulix software in IOL power calculation in long eyes in comparison with the other five methods based on the postoperative refractive error, calculated mean absolute error, and mean numerical error.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison with existing formulas by incorporating optional variables into calculation.
METHODS: This retrospective review consisted of 78 eyes of patients who had undergone uneventful phacoemulsification with intraocular implantation at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between February 2020 and January 2021. The Kane formula was compared with six of the existing IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay1, Holladay2, Barrett Universal II) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ±0.50D, and ±1.00D.
RESULTS: The Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs (0.26±0.17D), MedAEs (0.28D), and percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ± 0.50D, and ±1.00D, although there was no statistically significant difference between Barrett Universal II-SRK/T (p=0.06), and Barrett Universal II-Kane formula (p<0.51). Following the Barrett Universal II formula, the Kane formula demonstrated the second most accurate formula with MAEs (0.30±0.19D) and MedAEs (0.28D). However, no statistical difference was shown between Kane-Barrett Universal II (p=0.51) and Kane-SRK/T (p=0.14).
CONCLUSIONS: Although slightly better refractory outcome was noted in the Barrett Universal II formula, the performance of the Kane formula in refractive prediction was comparable in IOL power calculation, marking its superiority over many conventional IOL formulas, such as HofferQ, Haigis, Holladay1, and Holladay2.