Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the precision of six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q-among myopic patients undergoing cataract surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included 164 eyes from 131 patients with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with monofocal IOL implantation at a tertiary referral center between 2018 and 2021 Several biometric data points were recorded using the IOLMaster 700. Additionally, refractive prediction error was observed and defined as the difference between predicted and postoperative spherical equivalents. Formula performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean numerical error, median absolute error, and proportion of eyes achieving predefined refractive accuracy (±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D). RESULTS: Barrett Universal II showed the lowest calculation of MAE (0.54 ± 0.71 D), followed by SRK/T (0.57 ± 0.75 D) and Haigis (0.61 ± 0.69 D). Barrett Universal II demonstrated significant predictive accuracy compared with Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q ( P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were observed when compared to SRK/T and Haigis. Besides, it resulted in the highest proportions of eyes within ± 0.25 D (36.6%), ±0.50 D (59.1%), ±1.00 D (88.4%), and ± 2.00 D (98.8%). The absolute prediction error increased with AL ( P < 0.05), whereas there was no significant correlation with keratometry. CONCLUSION: In highly myopic eyes, Barrett Universal II showed numerically lower refractive prediction errors, with overall accuracy comparable to SRK/T and Haigis. No formula demonstrated consistent statistical superiority, indicating broadly equivalent performance among the leading formulas in this population.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Published
2026-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.ijo_2193_25
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

Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis

Teck Chee Cheng, J Hamzah, Thayaletchumy Gopala Krishnan
Indian Journal of Ophthalmology
Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
article

Evaluating predictive accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high axial myopia: A comparative analysis

Teck Chee Cheng, J Hamzah, Thayaletchumy Gopala Krishnan
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the precision of six intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q-among myopic patients undergoing cataract surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study included 164 eyes from 131 patients with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.0 mm who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with monofocal IOL implantation at a tertiary referral center between 2018 and 2021 Several biometric data points were recorded using the IOLMaster 700. Additionally, refractive prediction error was observed and defined as the difference between predicted and postoperative spherical equivalents. Formula performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), mean numerical error, median absolute error, and proportion of eyes achieving predefined refractive accuracy (±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D). RESULTS: Barrett Universal II showed the lowest calculation of MAE (0.54 ± 0.71 D), followed by SRK/T (0.57 ± 0.75 D) and Haigis (0.61 ± 0.69 D). Barrett Universal II demonstrated significant predictive accuracy compared with Holladay I, Holladay II, and Hoffer Q ( P < 0.05), while no statistically significant differences were observed when compared to SRK/T and Haigis. Besides, it resulted in the highest proportions of eyes within ± 0.25 D (36.6%), ±0.50 D (59.1%), ±1.00 D (88.4%), and ± 2.00 D (98.8%). The absolute prediction error increased with AL ( P < 0.05), whereas there was no significant correlation with keratometry. CONCLUSION: In highly myopic eyes, Barrett Universal II showed numerically lower refractive prediction errors, with overall accuracy comparable to SRK/T and Haigis. No formula demonstrated consistent statistical superiority, indicating broadly equivalent performance among the leading formulas in this population.

Indian Journal of OphthalmologyVol. 74(Suppl 1)
Hospital Kuala Lumpur (MY), National University of Malaysia (MY)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
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.