Prospective evaluation of the ESCRS online calculator for calculation of a multifocal intraocular lens

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate a recently introduced ESCRS online calculator for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of a multifocal IOL in refractive lens exchange and cataract surgery in a prospective setting. Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. Design: Prospective, consecutive case series. Methods: Eyes that received lens extraction and multifocal IOL implantation were included. The mean prediction error, mean absolute error, and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) provided by the ESCRS online calculator were compared, as were the number of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D), ±1.0 D, ±2.0 D of target refraction. The SRK/T formula was also included for comparison. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured at 3 months. 1 eye per patient was included. Results: 88 eyes from 88 patients with a mean age of 62 ± 9.5 years were included. The MedAE was low for all formulas and ranged from 0.26 D (Kane), Hill-RBF (0.27 D), Hoffer Q Savini/Taroni (Hoffer QST) (0.27 D), Barrett Universal II (BUII) (0.28 D), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (0.29 D), Cooke K6 (0.27 D), 0.30 D (Postoperative spherical Equivalent prediction using Artificial intelligence and Linear algorithms, by Debellemaniére, Gatinel, and Saad [Pearl DGS]) to 0.31 D (SRK/T). No statistically significant difference was found (P = .627). Considering the number of eyes within ±0.5 D of the calculated refraction the best performing was again the Hill-RBF (84%, 74 eyes), again followed by Kane (71, 81%), EVO, Pearl DGS, Hoffer QST, BUII (each 80%, 70 eyes), Cooke K6 (78%, 69 eyes), and SRK/T (74%). Again, no statistically significant difference was found (P = .39). Conclusions: Using a recently introduced ESCRS online IOL calculator in multifocal IOLs leds to a high number of eyes reaching target refraction and low prediction errors. All formulas performed similarly well. Hill-RBF showed the highest number of eyes within ±0.5 D, but no significance was found.