Retrospective study evaluates intraocular lens accuracy in myopic eyes using linear regression, suggesting important parameters.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 28 mm and to identify the anterior segment parameters independently affecting prediction error (PE). METHODS: A total of 415 eyes undergoing phacoemulsification with IOL implantation at Shanghai General Hospital were included in this retrospective observational study. Refractive PEs were calculated for 5 conventional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2 and SRK/T) with optimization and 7 new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, Ladas Super Formula [LSF] and Pearl-DGS). Predicted postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was calculated using keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) measured by IOLMaster 700. Q values, posterior mean keratometry, corneal volume, anterior chamber volume and angle and back-to-front corneal radius ratio were measured by Pentacam. Stepwise linear regression identified parameters associated with PE. RESULTS: Using the K method, BUII, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, Holladay 2, Kane and Pearl-DGS showed the lowest median absolute PE (MedAE = 0.32, 0.31, 0.32, 0.30, 0.30 and 0.32 D) and highest formula performance index (FPI = 0.74, 0.80, 0.69, 0.68, 0.60 and 0.69). BUII, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Holladay 2 and Pearl-DGS performed stably across axial groups (p > 0.05). K achieved lower AE than TK for all formulas (p < 0.05), except Hoffer QST (p = 0.497), Holladay 2 (p = 0.140) and Pearl-DGS (p = 0.912), with Kane performing better using TK (p = 0.024). Lens thickness (LT) independently affected PE for Holladay 2 and all new-generation formulas, with greater LT associated with myopic shifts (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EVO 2.0 formula provided the most accurate predictions with K method. Except for Kane, K outperformed TK. LT independently influences PE and should be considered in future IOL calculations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: