Advertisement

Current Ophthalmology Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 233–236 | Cite as

Mastering Lens Calculations: New Formulas and Comparisons

  • Aazim A. Siddiqui
  • Uday Devgan
Cataract (CE Starr and A Brissette, Section Editors)
  • 22 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cataract

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To provide a glimpse into some of the newer methods of performing IOL calculations and recent literature on which formulas and calculation strategies have been recommended for a certain subset of eyes.

Recent Findings

A literature review was performed to investigate all the relevant, recently published studies on the progress, comparisons, and recent advancements of IOL calculations. Based on this review, the appropriate history, evolution, progress, limitation, and recent advancements are analyzed and explained. A plethora of IOL formulas and calculation strategies have been developed to help surgeons achieve the most desired post-operative outcome for their patients.

Summary

Modern IOL formulas, calculation strategies, and biometric devices perform well for average eyes; however, they remain less optimal for eyes with atypical biometric parameters. There is no single solution that has been deemed as the perfect formula which can simplify the process and consistently provide accurate results for all types of eyes. Over the years, a number of different formula optimization strategies have been devised for traditional IOL formulas and newer, more sophisticated IOL formulas with advanced mathematical algorithms have been developed. By addition of new input parameters and use of complex mathematics to better estimate post-operative lens position, these solutions may minimize refractive error. These methods may provide increasing improvement in both typical and atypical eyes in the years to come.

Keywords

Cataract Cataract surgery IOL IOL formula IOL calculations Intraocular lens Intraocular lens formula Intraocular lens calculations 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Uday Devgan reports other from Advanced Euclidean Solutions outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr. Devgan has a patent Advanced Euclidean Solutions pending. Aazim A. Siddiqui declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614–8.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19:13–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shammas HJ. Part A: biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. In: Colvard DM, editor. Achieving excellence in cataract surgery: a step-by-step approach; 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beiko GH. Comparison of visual results with accommodating intraocular lenses versus mini-monovision with a monofocal intraocular lens. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:48–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Narváez J, Zimmerman G, Stulting RD, Chang DH. Accuracy of intraocular lens power prediction using the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T formulae. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:2050–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aristodemou P, Cartwright NEK, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:472–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang L, Shirayama M, Ma XJ, Kohnen T, Koch DD. Optimizing intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with axial lengths above 25.0 mm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Nov;37(11):2018–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.05.042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    User Group for Laser Interference Biometry. Available at: http://ocusoft.de/ulib/. Accessed July 3, 2018.
  10. 10.
    •• Ladas JG, Siddiqui AA, Devgan U, Jun AS. A 3-D “super surface” combining modern intraocular lens formulas to generate a “super formula” and maximize accuracy. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015;133:1431–6.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.3832 This study describes a novel method of representing IOL formulas in 3-D, and describes the derivation for the IOL “super formula” from the “super surface.”.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Kane JX, Heerden AV, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:1490–500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.07.021 This study compares accuracy of 7 IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, SRK/T, and T2) using IOLMaster biometry and optimized lens constants. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Hoffer KJ, Savini G. IOL power calculation in short and Long eyes. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2017;6:330–1.  https://doi.org/10.22608/APO.2017338 This study is an analysis of various studies published in the past 50 years to understand which IOL formulas are most appropriate for eyes shorter than 22 mm and longer than 26 mm. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Gökce SE, Zeiter JH, Weikert MP, Koch DD, Hill W, Wang L. Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:892–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.004 This study evaluated 7 IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Olsen) for eyes 22 mm or shorter. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    •• Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology. 2018;125:169–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027 This study compared the accuracy of several IOL formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, and SRK/T) in a large cohort of eyes which received two different types of lens implants. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Popovic M, Schlenker MB, Campos-Möller X, Pereira A, Ahmed IIK. Wang-Koch formula for optimization of intraocular lens power calculation: evaluation at a Canadian center. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44:17–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.09.035 This study evaluated the Wang-Koch axial length adjustment to the Holladay I formula and elucidated the range of axial length where it would be most beneficial. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens power selection. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:333–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.021 This study compares three new methods (Hill-RBF, FullMonte, and the Ladas Super Formula) of performing IOL calculations in addition to comparing these methods to Holladay I and Barrett Universal II formulas. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Montefiore Medical CenterAlbert Einstein College of MedicineNew York CityUSA
  2. 2.Devgan Eye Surgery, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, Jules Stein Eye InstituteUCLA School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations