Table 2 Published post refractive IOL calculation outcomes within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D of target
From: Intraocular lens power calculation following laser refractive surgery
First author (Year) | Method | Percentage within ± 0.50 D | Percentage within ± 1.00 D | Number of patients assessed overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Savini (2013) [12] | Overall | 60.7% | 85.7% | 28 |
DeMill et al. (2011) [25] | Ocular MD Calculator Average | 76% | 90% | 21 |
Hamed (2002) [35] | EffRP Adjusted | 70% | 94% | 100 |
Date et al.(2013) [39] | Diehl-Miller-Date Formula | 49% | 93% | 23 |
Masket (2006) [36] | Masket | 93.3% | 100% | 30 |
Hu (2010) [59] | Actual K (a + p) | 80% | 100% | 10 |
Ianchulev (2014) [46] | Intraoperative Refractive Biometry | 67% | 94% | 246 |
Geggel (2013) [60] | Geggel Ratio /Haigis | 78% | 100% | 34 |
| Â | Consensus | 70% | 93% | Â |
Saiki (2013) [77] | Anterior-Posterior Method | 46.4% | 75% | 28 |
Saiki (2013) [56] | Central-Peripheral Method | 48% | 68% | 25 |
Saiki (2014) [74] | Ray Tracing | 41.7% | 75% | 24 |
Savini (2014) [53] | Ray Tracing | 71.4% | 85.7% | 21 |
Canto et al. (2013) [52] | ORange | 39% | 60% | 53 |
Yang (2013) [24] | Best Performing | 58% | 90% | 62 |
Wang et al.(2010) [29] | Best Performing | 67% | 90% | 72 |
McCarthy et al.(2011) [32] | Best Performing | 58.8% | 84.3% | 173 |
Tang (2010) [33] | OCT Guided | 78% | -- | 27 |
Arce (2009) [79] | Orbscan Central 2Â mm TMP | 53% | 78% | 77 |
Qazi (2007) [80] | Orbscan 4Â mm TOP | 80.9% | 95.2% | 21 (back calculated) |
Shammas (2007) [81] | Shammas | -- | 93.3% | 15 |
Javadi (2012) [82] | Adjusted Flat K 3Â mm | 44.4% | 61.1% | 18 |
Cai (2011) [83] | Orbscan Mean Power | 48.4% | 80.6% | 62 |