TY - JOUR
T1 - Autorefraction as an Objective Method to Evaluate Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas
AU - Or, Lior
AU - Jacques, Angela
AU - Barrett, Graham D.
PY - 2022/9/1
Y1 - 2022/9/1
N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the spherical equivalent (SE) and astigmatic prediction error between subjective refraction (SUBref) and autorefraction (AUTOref) after cataract surgery to determine whether the latter is useful as an objective method to compare the accuracy of different methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. METHODS: Postoperative refraction was examined using two techniques: SUBref and AUTOref. The results of these two techniques were compared. Predicted postoperative refraction for spherical outcome was calculated with the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Holladay I, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and BUII with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA) formulas. Predicted postoperative refraction for astigmatic outcome was calculated with the Barrett Toric calculator, vergence-based toric calculator using the Holladay 1 formula for effective lens position, and Barrett Toric calculator MPCA formulas. Formula accuracy and ranking were compared between the two methods of refraction. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 219 eyes of 155 patients. Statistically significant differences were detected between SUBref and AUTOref for SE, J(0), and J(45) (P < .001). The spherical outcome formula analysis demonstrated no significant differences, whereas the predicted cylinder power analysis demonstrated significant differences within individual formulas between SUBref and AUTOref measures. The lowest median absolute error and the highest percentage of eyes achieving their refractive target for both SUBref and AUTOref were achieved with the BUII formula and the Barrett Toric calculator. CONCLUSIONS: AUTOref is a useful method with adequate accuracy to determine spherical and astigmatic outcome and equally or more effective in being able to discriminate between spherical outcome formulas. The AUTOref method can allow valuable studies to be conducted in less-than-optimal environments and provides the ability to compare studies without the confounding factors of SUBref.
AB - PURPOSE: To compare the spherical equivalent (SE) and astigmatic prediction error between subjective refraction (SUBref) and autorefraction (AUTOref) after cataract surgery to determine whether the latter is useful as an objective method to compare the accuracy of different methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. METHODS: Postoperative refraction was examined using two techniques: SUBref and AUTOref. The results of these two techniques were compared. Predicted postoperative refraction for spherical outcome was calculated with the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Holladay I, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and BUII with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA) formulas. Predicted postoperative refraction for astigmatic outcome was calculated with the Barrett Toric calculator, vergence-based toric calculator using the Holladay 1 formula for effective lens position, and Barrett Toric calculator MPCA formulas. Formula accuracy and ranking were compared between the two methods of refraction. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 219 eyes of 155 patients. Statistically significant differences were detected between SUBref and AUTOref for SE, J(0), and J(45) (P < .001). The spherical outcome formula analysis demonstrated no significant differences, whereas the predicted cylinder power analysis demonstrated significant differences within individual formulas between SUBref and AUTOref measures. The lowest median absolute error and the highest percentage of eyes achieving their refractive target for both SUBref and AUTOref were achieved with the BUII formula and the Barrett Toric calculator. CONCLUSIONS: AUTOref is a useful method with adequate accuracy to determine spherical and astigmatic outcome and equally or more effective in being able to discriminate between spherical outcome formulas. The AUTOref method can allow valuable studies to be conducted in less-than-optimal environments and provides the ability to compare studies without the confounding factors of SUBref.
KW - POWER
KW - PREDICTION
KW - ERROR
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137714375&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3928/1081597X-20220715-01
DO - 10.3928/1081597X-20220715-01
M3 - Article
C2 - 36098387
SN - 1081-597X
VL - 38
SP - 580
EP - 590
JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery
JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery
IS - 9
ER -