Retrospective analysis shows the O formula outperforms several established IOL power prediction methods, indicating greater accuracy.
To evaluate the predictive accuracy of the O formula, based on the ray-tracing method, compared with the latest formulas included in the ESCRS website. Retrospective consecutive case series at a single center. Records of consecutive patients who underwent routine cataract surgery implanted with acrylic IOLs between August 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the O formula was compared with that of the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 (EVO), Kane, Pearl-DGS formulas based on the website of ESCRS, and the SRK/T formula. Swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT)-based biometry and anterior segment SS-OCT were performed preoperatively, and manifest refraction was assessed 1-month postoperatively. Primary outcomes were root-mean-square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportions within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D. A total of 325 eyes (258 patients) were included. The RMSAE of the O formula, BUII, EVO, Kane, Pearl-DGS, and SRK/T were 0.396, 0.468, 0.441, 0.449, 0.550, and 0.425, respectively. In GEE models, mean absolute error was significantly lower with the O formula than with BUII, EVO, Kane, and Pearl-DGS; no difference versus SRK/T was detected. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was 78.7% for the O formula, 71.4% for BUII, 73.6% for EVO, 73.9% for Kane, 61.6% for Pearl-DGS, and 76.3% for SRK/T. The O formula achieved significantly higher percentages of eyes within both ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction compared to Pearl-DGS (P < 0.001). The O formula demonstrated high refractive accuracy without A-constant optimization and performs favorably against widely used formulas. It can be used as a fail-safe in IOL power calculation, as it is less susceptible to prediction errors exceeding 1.0 D.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mori et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: