Refractive Predictability of Third-Generation and Modern IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Yamane Intrascleral Fixation
American Journal of Ophthalmology, cilt.292, ss.110-117, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 292
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1016/j.ajo.2026.08.006
- Dergi Adı: American Journal of Ophthalmology
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, BIOSIS, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.110-117
- Lokman Hekim Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Purpose: To evaluate the refractive predictability of third-generation and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes undergoing Yamane intrascleral fixation (YISF). Design: Retrospective, comparative evaluation of IOL power calculation accuracy. Subjects: Eighty-seven eyes of 87 patients who underwent YISF due to aphakia or single-piece IOL subluxation were evaluated. Methods: Third-generation formulas (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), and T2) and modern formulas (Barrett Universal II[BUII] and emmetropia verifying optical [EVO] 2.0) were assessed. Main Outcome Measures: Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D were calculated. Analyses were performed before and after constant optimization. The constant optimization was performed using the method of zeroing the ME. Results: In the initial analysis, all formulas demonstrated a hyperopic shift, with ME values ranging from +0.55D to +0.71D. No significant differences were detected among the formulas in terms of ME, MAE, or MedAE (P > .05). The proportion of eyes with ME within ±0.50D was higher for SRK/T (63%), BUII (60%), and EVO 2.0 (54%) than for Hoffer Q (48%) (P < .001, P < .001, and P = 0.004). In contrast, no significant difference was found in the proportion of eyes with ME within ±1.00D (P > .05). After constant optimization, ME reached zero for all formulas, and no significant differences were observed among the formulas regarding MAE, MedAE, or the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D (P > .05). In both analyses, no statistically significant differences were found among the six formulas with respect to either IOL type or indication (P > .05). Conclusions: A systematic hyperopic shift was observed with all formulas after YISF. Although SRK/T, BUII, and EVO 2.0 appeared more successful before optimization, third-generation and modern formulas demonstrated similar refractive performance after constant optimization. These findings suggest that refractive outcomes are largely influenced by surgery-related variability in actual lens position.