Accuracy of the Kane Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Comparison with Existing Formulas: A Retrospective Review
10.3349/ymj.2021.62.12.1117
- Author:
Soyoung RYU
1
;
Ikhyun JUN
;
Tae-im KIM
;
Eung Kweon KIM
;
Kyoung Yul SEO
Author Information
1. The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
2021;62(12):1117-1124
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:To evaluate the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison with existing formulas by incorporating optional variables into calculation.
Materials and Methods:This retrospective review consisted of 78 eyes of patients who had undergone uneventful phacoemulsification with intraocular implantation at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between February 2020 and January 2021. The Kane formula was compared with six of the existing IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay1, Holladay2, Barrett Universal II) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ±0.50D, and ±1.00D.
Results:The Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs (0.26±0.17D), MedAEs (0.28D), and percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ± 0.50D, and ±1.00D, although there was no statistically significant difference between Barrett Universal II-SRK/T (p=0.06), and Barrett Universal II-Kane formula (p<0.51). Following the Barrett Universal II formula, the Kane formula demonstrated the second most accurate formula with MAEs (0.30±0.19D) and MedAEs (0.28D). However, no statistical difference was shown between Kane-Barrett Universal II (p=0.51) and Kane-SRK/T (p=0.14).
Conclusion:Although slightly better refractory outcome was noted in the Barrett Universal II formula, the performance of the Kane formula in refractive prediction was comparable in IOL power calculation, marking its superiority over many conventional IOL formulas, such as HofferQ, Haigis, Holladay1, and Holladay2.
