Intraoperative aberrometry vs modern preoperative formulas in predicting intraocular lens power.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of an intraoperative aberrometer (ORA) to the Barrett Universal II (Barrett II) and Hill-RBF 2.0 (Hill-RBF) intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas. SETTING: Duke University Eye Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Patients without history of refractive corneal surgery who had an uneventful cataract surgery from April 2016 to June 2018 were enrolled. Refractive prediction error was calculated with the Barrett II formula, the Hill-RBF formula, and the ORA intraoperative aberrometer (OIA) and was stratified by axial length, IOL type, and the percentage of eyes within a diopteric range of target refraction. RESULTS: Nine-hundred forty-nine eyes were included. The mean and median absolute predictive errors were 0.29 diopters (D) and 0.23 D (Barrett II), 0.31 D and 0.24 D (Hill-RBF), and 0.31 D and 0.25 D (intraoperative aberrometry), respectively (P > .05). Axial length stratification did not influence statistical difference in the IOL prediction methods. Barrett II outperformed the OIA toric multifocal (P = .011) group. Postoperative refraction was within 0.50 D of target in 84% (Barrett II), 83% (Hill-RBF), and 82% (OIA) of eyes (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the OIA to the Barrett II and Hill-RBF calculators, there was minimal clinical difference in the toric multifocal group. Regarding postoperative predicted spherical equivalent, for patients without a history of refractive surgery and good potential visual acuity, refractive outcome was not improved by utilizing the OIA.

Duke Scholars

Author Anthony Nanlin Kuo Ophthalmology, Corneal Diseases

Author Charlene Lillian James Ophthalmology

Author Robin Raul Vann Ophthalmology, Comprehensive Ophthalmology