Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Zeiss Artificial Intelligence Calculator versus Barrett Universal II and Kane

Purpose: To compare the performance of the Zeiss AI IOL Calculator (ZAIC) to that of Barrett Universal II (BUII) and Kane, using standard (K) and total keratometry (TK) as inputs. Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective case series which included surgery-naïve eyes undergoing cataract surgery with preoperative optical biometry on the IOLMaster 700, monofocal IOL (Bausch & Lomb enVista MX60E) implantation, and 20/40 acuity or better measured at least 3 weeks postoperatively. After taking the difference between actual and predicted postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) for each eye, optimized outcome measures included the mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of the mean prediction error, root mean squared absolute error (RMSAE), median prediction error (MedAE), and proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of predicted. Statistical differences were identified using Wilcox-Holladay-Wang-Koch tests with Holm correction. Results: A total of 246 eyes of 246 patients were analyzed. The MAE of ZAIC was significantly lower than that of BU2 TK [0.30 vs 0.32 D (p = 0.04)]. ZAIC had a lower SD and RMSAE than that of BU2 K and BU2 TK [0.38 vs 0.41 (p = 0.001) and 0.42 D (p = 0.002); 0.38 vs 0.41 (p = 0.008) and 0.42 (p = 0.008)]. ZAIC also had a larger proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of predicted compared to BU2 K [82% vs 76% (p = 0.02)], as well as a larger proportion of eyes within 0.75 D of predicted compared to BU2 TK [95% vs 91% (p = 0.02)]. There were no significant differences in MedAE or the proportion of eyes within 0.25 or 1 D of predicted. Conclusion: Compared to BU2, ZAIC produces a lower MAE, SD, and RMSAE, and a higher proportion of eyes within 0.5 and 0.75 D of predicted but performs similarly to Kane across all outcome measures. This remains true regardless of whether K or TK is used as an input. This study is limited by its retrospective design and use of a single MX60E IOL model. Plain Language Summary: This multi-institutional retrospective case series compares the prediction accuracy and precision of the Zeiss AI IOL Calculator (ZAIC) to the Barrett Universal II (BU2) and Kane intraocular lens power prediction formulas for cataract surgery. Results suggest ZAIC outperforms BU2 and performs at least as well as Kane. This holds true regardless of whether standard or total keratometry is used as formula inputs. This corroborates ZAIC as an accurate and precise tool for the preoperative selection of intraocular lens power, performing at least as well as other modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas. Keywords: cataract extraction, intraocular lens, artificial intelligence

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical ophthalmology
Published
2026-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2147/opth.s578393
Primary Topic
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Zeiss Artificial Intelligence Calculator versus Barrett Universal II and Kane

Kathleen Scruggs, Liam Redden, Seth Pantanelli, Nathan Cannon et al.
Clinical ophthalmology
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery Using Zeiss Artificial Intelligence Calculator versus Barrett Universal II and Kane

Kathleen Scruggs, Liam Redden, Seth Pantanelli, Nathan Cannon, Kamran Riaz
article en

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the performance of the Zeiss AI IOL Calculator (ZAIC) to that of Barrett Universal II (BUII) and Kane, using standard (K) and total keratometry (TK) as inputs. Patients and Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective case series which included surgery-naïve eyes undergoing cataract surgery with preoperative optical biometry on the IOLMaster 700, monofocal IOL (Bausch & Lomb enVista MX60E) implantation, and 20/40 acuity or better measured at least 3 weeks postoperatively. After taking the difference between actual and predicted postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) for each eye, optimized outcome measures included the mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation (SD) of the mean prediction error, root mean squared absolute error (RMSAE), median prediction error (MedAE), and proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of predicted. Statistical differences were identified using Wilcox-Holladay-Wang-Koch tests with Holm correction. Results: A total of 246 eyes of 246 patients were analyzed. The MAE of ZAIC was significantly lower than that of BU2 TK [0.30 vs 0.32 D (p = 0.04)]. ZAIC had a lower SD and RMSAE than that of BU2 K and BU2 TK [0.38 vs 0.41 (p = 0.001) and 0.42 D (p = 0.002); 0.38 vs 0.41 (p = 0.008) and 0.42 (p = 0.008)]. ZAIC also had a larger proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of predicted compared to BU2 K [82% vs 76% (p = 0.02)], as well as a larger proportion of eyes within 0.75 D of predicted compared to BU2 TK [95% vs 91% (p = 0.02)]. There were no significant differences in MedAE or the proportion of eyes within 0.25 or 1 D of predicted. Conclusion: Compared to BU2, ZAIC produces a lower MAE, SD, and RMSAE, and a higher proportion of eyes within 0.5 and 0.75 D of predicted but performs similarly to Kane across all outcome measures. This remains true regardless of whether K or TK is used as an input. This study is limited by its retrospective design and use of a single MX60E IOL model. Plain Language Summary: This multi-institutional retrospective case series compares the prediction accuracy and precision of the Zeiss AI IOL Calculator (ZAIC) to the Barrett Universal II (BU2) and Kane intraocular lens power prediction formulas for cataract surgery. Results suggest ZAIC outperforms BU2 and performs at least as well as Kane. This holds true regardless of whether standard or total keratometry is used as formula inputs. This corroborates ZAIC as an accurate and precise tool for the preoperative selection of intraocular lens power, performing at least as well as other modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas. Keywords: cataract extraction, intraocular lens, artificial intelligence

Clinical ophthalmologyVol. Volume 20
Dean McGee Eye Institute (US), Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.