About OJO | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Author Instructions | Reviewer Guidelines | Online submissionLogin 
Oman Journal of Ophthalmology Oman Journal of Ophthalmology
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
https://www.omanophthalmicsociety.org/ Users Online: 5932  Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 290-294

Accuracy of Barrett versus third-generation intraocular lens formula across all axial lengths


Cataract and Refractive Services, The Eye Foundation Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Raline Solomon
The Eye Foundation, 582, Diwan Bahadur Rd, R S Puram West, Coimbatore - 641 002, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ojo.ojo_188_21

Rights and Permissions

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of Barrett Universal II versus third-generation formula for different intraocular lens (IOL) powers for Indian eyes with different axial lengths (ALs). DESIGN: This is a retrospective, nonrandomized consecutive case series. METHODS: This study reviewed 981 eyes from 825 patients who had uneventful cataract surgery and IOL implantation. The eyes were separated into subgroups based on AL as follows: short (<22.0 mm), medium (22.01–23.99 mm), and long (>24.0 mm). The predicted refractive outcome using formulas was calculated and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. The percentage of every refractive error absolute value for each formula was calculated at <±0.50D, 0.50D-0.75D, and >±0.75D. RESULTS: In all, 981 eyes were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by Barrett and the third-generation formulae. The Barrett Universal II formula resulted in significantly lowest mean spherical equivalent in short eyes (P = 0.0047) as well as a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within <±0.50D, 0.50D-0.75D, and >±0.75D. We found that the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest predictive refraction error and mean absolute error across all ALs. CONCLUSION: The Barrett Universal II formula rendered the lowest predictive error compared with SRK/T, Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas. Thus, the Barrett Universal II formula may be regarded as a more reliable formula for achieving emmetropia and reducing postoperative refractive surprises across all ALs.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed190    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal