Clinical Ophthalmology (Aug 2024)

A Comprehensive Evaluation of 16 Old and New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Eyes

  • Achiron A,
  • Yahalomi T,
  • Biran A,
  • Levinger E,
  • Cohen E,
  • Elbaz U,
  • Ali A,
  • Mireskandari K,
  • Tuuminen R,
  • Voytsekhivskyy OV

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 18
pp. 2225 – 2238

Abstract

Read online

Asaf Achiron,1 Tal Yahalomi,2 Amit Biran,1 Eliya Levinger,1 Eyal Cohen,1 Uri Elbaz,3 Asim Ali,4,5 Kamiar Mireskandari,4,5 Raimo Tuuminen,6,7 Oleksiy V Voytsekhivskyy8 1Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; 2Department of Ophthalmology, Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital and the Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva, Israel; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; 4Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 5Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 6Helsinki Retina Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 7Department of Ophthalmology, Kymenlaakso Central Hospital, Kotka, Finland; 8Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Kyiv, UkraineCorrespondence: Oleksiy V Voytsekhivskyy, Kyiv Clinical Ophthalmology Hospital Eye Microsurgery Center, Komarov Ave. 3, Medical City, Kyiv, 03680, Ukraine, Tel +38067-584-28-11, Email [email protected]: To compare the accuracy of 16 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract eyes.Patients and Methods: The data records of pediatric patients who had been implanted with three IOL models (SA60AT, MA60AC, and enVista-MX60) between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed. The accuracy of 16 IOL power calculation methods was evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, LSF AI, Naeser 2, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The non-optimized (ULIB/IOLcon) and optimized constants were used for IOL power calculation. The mean prediction error (PE), Performance Index (FPI), and all descriptive statistics were calculated.Results: Ninety-seven eyes of 97 pediatric patients aged 13.2 (IQR 11.2– 17.1) were included. No statistically significant difference (HS-test) was observed (p > 0.818) except for the Hoffer Q, and Naeser 2 (P = 0.014). With optimized lens constants, the best FPI indices were obtained by Hoffer Q (0.256) and VRF-G (0.251) formulas, followed by Hill-RBF 3.0 and BUII, with an index of 0.248. The highest FPI indices with non-optimized constants showed SRK/T and T2 formulas (0.246 and 0.245, respectively), followed by VRF-G and Holladay 1, with an index of 0.244. The best median absolute error values (MedAE) were achieved by Hoffer Q (0.50 D), VRF-G (0.53 D), and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D), all P ≥ 0.074.Conclusion: Our results place the Hoffer Q, VRF-G, Hill-RBF 3.0, and BUII formulas as more accurate predictors of postoperative refraction in pediatric cataract surgery.Keywords: IOL power, formulas, pediatric eyes, calculation, axial length

Keywords