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.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of two different ocular biometers and Scheimpflug devices in keratoconus eyes.
METHODS: This prospective, comparative trial took place at the University hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. We included eyes with keratoconus, one eye per patient, randomly selected. Measurements were taken with Galilei G6 (Ziemer, Switzerland) and Pentacam AXL (Oculus, Germany), three consecutive measurements each. Repeatability and agreement were evaluated for simulated keratometry (simK), astigmatism (simA), maximum keratometry (KMax) and its axis, total keratometry (TCP), axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and thinnest pachymetry (TCT).
RESULTS: Both devices showed an excellent repeatability with intra class correlation (ICC) of > 0.97 for all parameters. The 95% limits of repeatability (LoR95%) and agreement (LoA95%) were narrow for all parameters. The Galilei G6 had a narrower LoAR95% for TCT (2.1 μm vs. 4.6 μm), but a wider LoR95% for KMax (0.52D vs. 1.18D). No relevant difference was found for the other parameters. Agreement between the devices was good to moderate, especially for simK and TCP.
CONCLUSIONS: Both devices show excellent repeatability with narrow LoR95% and high ICC for all parameters. The only relevant difference was found for KMax and TCT in favor of Pentacam AXL and Galilei G6, respectively. Agreement was good to moderate, and most parameters should not be considered interchangeable.

BACKGROUND: To assess changes in ocular biometry of the phakic eye after pars-plana-vitrectomy (PPV) and silicone oil (SO) endotamponade in eyes with a retinal detachment.
METHODS: This retrospective, consecutive case series included 72 eyes of 72 patients who underwent PPV with 5000-centistokes SO endotamponade between July 2018 and June 2023. Pseudophakic eyes and eyes with a combined phacovitrectomy were excluded. Primary endpoints were keratometry values, anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), horizontal corneal diameter (HCD), and axial length (AL) measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometry (IOLMaster 700) preoperatively and six weeks postoperatively. A recently described formula was used to adjust the AL (aAL) in eyes with SO endotamponade and a theoretical intraocular lens (IOL) calculation was performed.
RESULTS: The mean age was 62.1 ± 8.3 years (range: 37-85). After PPV with SO fill, there was an increase in Kmean (0.19 ± 0.51D), while ACD (0.05 ± 0.13 mm), LT (0.03 ± 0.14 mm), and HCD (0.02 ± 0.24 mm) decreased. Preoperatively, the mean AL was 25.22 ± 1.78 mm, while postoperatively the AL was overestimated by 0.12 ± 0.42 mm on average (p = 0.04). By adjusting the AL, the mean difference could be reduced to -0.002 ± 0.41 mm. The aAL resulted in a difference in the refractive outcome in eyes with an AL > 25 mm of 0.34 ± 0.10D in the IOL calculation.
CONCLUSIONS: While changes in biometry after PPV with SO endotamponade in the anterior segment are clinically less relevant, a considerable overestimation of AL with IOLMaster 700 was found. We recommend the use of a recently introduced formula for adjusting AL in eyes with SO, allowing overestimation to be minimised considerably.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of the fellow eye (FE) can be used in eyes undergoing combined phacovitrectomy.
METHODS: In this retrospective, consecutive case series, we enrolled patients who underwent combined phacovitrectomy with silicone oil removal and IOL implantation at the Goethe-University. Preoperative examinations included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss). We used the IOL calculation of the FE (FE group) to calculate the prediction error compared with the IOL calculation using only the axial length (AL) of the FE (AL-FE group), as well as using the AL of the operated eye (OE group) in addition to the measurable biometric parameters. IOL calculation was performed using the Barrett Universal II formula. We compared the mean (MAE) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) with each other. Furthermore, the number of eyes with ±0.50, ±1.00 and ±2.00 dioptres (D) deviation from the target refraction was compared.
RESULTS: In total, 79 eyes of 79 patients were included. MedAE was lowest in the OE group (0.41 D), followed by FE group (1.00 D) and AL-FE group (1.02 D). Comparison between the AL-FE and FE groups showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.712). Comparing eyes within ±0.50 D of the target refraction, the OE group (63.3%) performed best, followed by the AL-FE group (27.8%) and the FE group (26.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no clinically relevant difference between using the IOL calculation of the FE versus using only the AL of the FE in addition to the measurable parameters for the IOL calculation. A two-step procedure should always be strived for.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in children undergoing lens extraction and IOL implantation.
METHODS: Retrospective, consecutive case series at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. We included eyes that received lens extraction and IOL implantation (SN60AT, Alcon, Fort Worth, TX) due to congenital or juvenile cataract. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster 500/700, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany). To evaluate the measurements, we compared the mean prediction error (MPE), mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE, MedAE) of six different formulas, and number of eyes within ± 0.5, ± 1.0, ± 2.0D of target refraction. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured by retinoscopy 4-12 weeks after surgery.
RESULTS: 66 eyes matched our inclusion criteria with a mean age of 6.3 years ± 3.2. MedAE was lowest in SRK/T (0.55D ± 1.08) followed by Holladay I (0.75D ± 1.00), EVO 2.0 (0.80D ± 0.89), Barrett Universal II (BUII, 0.86D ± 1.00), Hoffer Q (0.97 D ± 0.94), and Haigis (1.10D ± 0.95). Regarding eyes within ± 0.5D SRK/T (45.5.%, 30 eyes) performed best, followed by Holladay I (36.4%, 24 eyes), EVO 2.0 and BUII (each 34.8%, 23 eyes). There was a myopic shift seen in all formulas (MPE: -0.21 to -0.90D).
CONCLUSIONS: Using modern formulas, or even AI formulas, for IOL calculation in children\'s eyes does barely improve predictability of the postoperative refraction. A myopic shift can be found for all formulas. However, specific formulas like SRK/T seem to better anticipate this.

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).

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations is one of the key indicators for determining the success of cataract surgery. However, in highly myopic patients, the calculation errors are relatively larger than those in general patients. With the continuous development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, there has also been a constant emergence of AI-related calculation formulas. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of AI calculation formulas in calculating the power of IOL for highly myopic patients.
METHODS: We searched the relevant literature through August 2023 using three databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Six IOL calculation formulas were compared: Kane, Hill-RBF, EVO, Barrett II, Haigis, and SRK/T. The included metrics were the mean absolute error (MAE) and percentage of errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D.
RESULTS: The results showed that the MAE of Kane was significantly lower than that of Barrett II (mean difference = - 0.03 D, P = 0.02), SRK/T (MD = - 0.08 D, P = 0.02), and Haigis (MD = - 0.12 D, P < 0.00001). The percentage refractive prediction errors for Kane at ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were significantly greater than those for SRK/T (P = 0.007, 0.003, and 0.01, respectively) and Haigis (P = 0.009, 0.0001, and 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant differences were noted between Hill-RBF and Barret, but Hill-RBF was significantly better than SRK/T and Haigis.
CONCLUSIONS: The AI calculation formulas showed more accurate results compared with traditional formulas. Among them, Kane has the best performance in calculating IOL degrees for highly myopic patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using axial length (AL) data obtained by ultrasound biometry (UBM) compared to the third-generation SRK/T calculator.
METHODS: The study included 230 patients (267 eyes) with severe lens opacities that prevented optical biometry, who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation. IOL power calculation according to the SRK/T formula was based on AL and anterior chamber depth obtained by UBM (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry on the Topcon KR 8800 autorefractometer. To adapt AL for new generation calculators - Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) - the retinal thickness (0.20 mm) was added to the axial length determined by UBM, and then the optical power of the artificial lens was calculated. The mean error and its modulus value were used as criteria for the accuracy of IOL calculation.
RESULTS: A significant difference (p=0.008) in the mean IOL calculation error was found between the formulas. Pairwise analysis revealed differences between SRK/T (-0.32±0.58 D) and other formulas - BUII (-0.16±0.52 D; p=0.014), RBF (-0.17±0.51 D; p=0.024), Kane (-0.17±0.52 D; p=0.029), but not with the LSF calculator (-0.19±0.53 D; p=0.071). No significant differences between the formulas were found in terms of mean error modulus (p=0.238). New generation calculators showed a more frequent success in hitting target refraction (within ±1.00 D in more than 95% of cases) than the SRK/T formula (86%).
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method of adding 0.20 mm to the AL determined by UBM allows using this parameter in modern IOL calculation formulas and improving the refractive results of PE, especially in eyes with non-standard anterior segment structure.
UNASSIGNED: Оценка точности современных формул расчета интраокулярных линз (ИОЛ) с использованием данных о длине переднезадней оси (ПЗО), полученных при ультразвуковой биометрии (УЗБ), по сравнению с калькулятором третьего поколения SRK/T.
UNASSIGNED: В исследование включено 230 пациентов (267 глаз) с выраженными помутнениями хрусталика, препятствовавшими выполнению оптической биометрии, которым была проведена факоэмульсификация (ФЭ) с имплантацией ИОЛ. Калькуляция оптической силы ИОЛ по формуле SRK/T основывалась на длине ПЗО и глубине передней камеры, полученных с помощью контактной УЗБ (Tomey Biometer Al-100) и кератометрии на авторефрактокератометре Topcon KR 8800. В целях адаптации ПЗО для калькуляторов нового поколения — Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane и Ladas Super Formula (LSF) — к определяемой с помощью УЗБ аксиальной длине добавлялась толщина сетчатки (0,20 мм), а затем вычислялась оптическая сила искусственного хрусталика. В качестве критериев точности расчета ИОЛ использовались средняя ошибка и модуль ее значения.
UNASSIGNED: Обнаружена значимая разница (p=0,008) в средней ошибке расчета ИОЛ между формулами. Попарный анализ выявил различия между SRK/T (–0,32±0,58 дптр) и другими формулами — BUII (–0,16±0,52 дптр; p=0,014), RBF (–0,17±0,51 дптр; p=0,024), Kane (–0,17±0,52 дптр; p=0,029), но не с калькулятором LSF (–0,19±0,53 дптр; p=0,071). Значимых различий между формулами по параметру модуля средней ошибки найдено не было (p=0,238). Калькуляторы новых поколений показали более частое попадание в рефракцию цели (в пределах ±1,00 дптр более чем в 95% случаев), чем формула SRK/T (86%).
UNASSIGNED: Предложенный метод добавления 0,20 мм к определяемой с помощью УЗБ длине ПЗО позволяет использовать данный параметр в современных формулах расчета ИОЛ и улучшать рефракционные результаты ФЭ, особенно в глазах с нестандартным строением переднего отрезка.

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.