Skip to main content

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
  Consensus 70% 93%  
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 2 mm TMP 53% 78% 77
Qazi (2007) [80] Orbscan 4 mm TOP 80.9% 95.2% 21 (back calculated)
Shammas (2007) [81] Shammas -- 93.3% 15
Javadi (2012) [82] Adjusted Flat K 3 mm 44.4% 61.1% 18
Cai (2011) [83] Orbscan Mean Power 48.4% 80.6% 62