Evaluation Of Kane, Barrett, Evo, And Dgs Formulas For Refractive Outcomes In Trifocal Iol Implantation Cases
Published 2025 - 43rd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO448 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/kgm3-zt83
Authors: Clare ODonnell* 1 , Maryam Fatehifar 2 , Amir Hamid 3 , Hema Radhakrishnan 4 , Ajay Harish 5 , Ola Spencer 3 , Nabila Jones 3
1Eye Sciences,Optegra Eye Health Care,Manchester,United Kingdom;Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,University of Manchester,Manchester,United Kingdom;College of health and Life Sciences,Aston University,Birmingham,United Kingdom, 2Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,University of Manchester,Manchester,United Kingdom;Eye Sciences,Optegra Eye Health Care,Manchester,United Kingdom, 3Eye Sciences,Optegra Eye Health Care,Manchester,United Kingdom, 4Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,University of Manchester,Manchester,United Kingdom, 5Faculty of Science and Engineering,University of Manchester,Manchester,United Kingdom
Purpose
To evaluate the predictive accuracy of four intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas—Kane, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and Double-Gaussian Spline (DGS)—in cataract patients implanted with trifocal IOLs (PanOptix, Alcon).
Setting
Fifty-five cataract patients underwent implantation of the PanOptix intraocular lens (IOL).Kane, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and Double-Gaussian Spline (DGS) were used for calculating the power of intraocular lenses (IOLs).
Methods
Prediction errors for each formula were analyzed and compared. Key outcome measures included median arithmetic error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of predictions within tolerance ranges of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D. Statistical analysis was conducted to assess differences in formula performance.
Results
The EVO formula yielded the lowest ME (-0.37 D) and MAE (0.48 D), with the highest percentages of predictions within ±0.25 D (30%) and ±0.75 D (78%). The Barrett formula showed the largest ME (-0.50 D) and MAE (0.60 D), with the lowest percentages within ±0.25 D (24%) and ±0.75 D (68%). The Kane and DGS formulas demonstrated intermediate performance, with Kane outperforming DGS in predictions within ±0.50 D (56% vs. 52%).
Conclusions
The EVO formula exhibited superior accuracy compared to the Kane, DGS, and Barrett formulas for trifocal IOL power calculations. These results suggest that EVO may offer the most reliable option for achieving precise refractive outcomes in patients receiving trifocal IOLs, potentially enhancing postoperative visual performance in clinical practice