Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.Methods: The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.Results: Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (<i>p</i> = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (<i>p</i> = 0.022 and <i>p</i> = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (<i>p</i> = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.Conclusions: Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.