TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology JO - Br J Ophthalmol SP - 484 LP - 489 DO - 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193 VL - 105 IS - 4 AU - Giacomo Savini AU - Marco Di Maita AU - Kenneth J Hoffer AU - Kristian Næser AU - Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello AU - Aldo Vagge AU - Luca Di Cello AU - Carlo E Traverso Y1 - 2021/04/01 UR - http://bjo.bmj.com/content/105/4/484.abstract N2 - Background/aims To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery.Methods In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated.Results Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p<0.0001); the lowest values were achieved with the Kane (0.214 D), RBF 2.0 (0.215 D), BUII with and without ACD (0.218 D) and SRK/T (0.223 D). A percentage ranging from 80% to 88.5% of eyes showed a PE within ±0.50 D and all formulas achieved more than 50% of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D.Conclusion All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option. ER -