IOL Power Calculation: A Complete Guide to Modern Formulas, Post-Refractive Eyes, and Keratoconus

Selecting the correct intraocular lens (IOL) power is one of the most consequential technical steps in cataract surgery. A technically well-executed operation can still leave a patient with an unwanted refractive outcome if the power calculation was inaccurate, and the formula used to translate biometric measurements into a lens power is central to getting this right. This post is written for both patients preparing for cataract surgery and for referring optometrists and GPs, and reviews the current evidence on modern IOL formulas, the particular challenges of eyes with previous laser refractive surgery, and eyes with keratoconus.

Why Does IOL Power Calculation Matter?

The goal of modern cataract surgery is emmetropia, a postoperative refraction close to plano that minimises or removes a patient's dependence on glasses. Achieving this depends on measuring the eye accurately before surgery and selecting a formula capable of translating those measurements into the correct lens power.

IOL power calculation begins with a set of biometric measurements: axial length (AL), corneal power (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness, white-to-white corneal diameter, and in some formulas additional parameters such as central corneal thickness. These measurements are entered into a formula, which predicts the effective lens position (ELP), the position the IOL will actually occupy inside the eye once healing is complete, and then calculates the lens power required to reach the desired postoperative refraction.

Small errors in predicting ELP propagate directly into refractive surprises. For an IOL of average power, a modest error in predicted lens position can produce a refractive error of roughly a dioptre or more at the spectacle plane, which is why a formula's ability to predict ELP accurately, not simply its ability to measure the eye accurately, is often the limiting factor in achieving the target refraction.

Modern swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) biometers, such as the IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss) and Argos (Movu), measure axial length, corneal curvature, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness in a single scan, and increasingly provide total keratometry (TK) values that incorporate posterior corneal power directly. This improves the accuracy of the biometric inputs feeding into the formula, particularly in eyes with more complex anatomy, discussed in detail later in this guide. Phacoemulsification technique itself has only a modest influence on final lens position compared with the accuracy of the preoperative measurements and the formula used.

What Are the Different Generations of IOL Formulas?

IOL formulas are broadly grouped by how they were derived: first and second generation regression formulas based on empirical outcome data, third and fourth generation theoretical vergence formulas incorporating more biometric variables, and modern fifth generation formulas that use artificial intelligence, pattern recognition, or ray-tracing methods. Each generation generally reduced prediction error compared with the one before it, though the improvement has not been uniform across every eye type.

First and second generation (historical context): SRK and SRK II (Sanders, Retzlaff, Kraff) were regression-based formulas derived from clinical outcome data rather than optical theory. They are no longer used for routine surgery because of systematic errors at the extremes of axial length. Binkhorst and Colenbrander introduced theoretical vergence-based approaches around the same era, both since superseded by later formula generations.

Third generation: SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q remain in occasional clinical use today. These formulas use three biometric variables, axial length, corneal power, and anterior chamber depth, together with a single anterior-segment constant specific to each IOL model, to predict ELP. SRK/T tends to perform reasonably well in long eyes, and Hoffer Q has traditionally been preferred in short eyes. All three, however, show significant limitations at the extremes of axial length and in eyes with unusual anterior segment anatomy.

Fourth generation: Haigis introduced three constants (a0, a1, a2) and uses measured anterior chamber depth directly, improving ELP prediction over the third-generation formulas. It remains in use today, including in the post-refractive setting via the Haigis-L variant, discussed below. Holladay 2 incorporates seven variables, including lens thickness and white-to-white diameter, but is not freely available. Olsen uses lens thickness and preoperative ACD to predict postoperative ELP through the C-constant concept.

Modern fifth generation and AI formulas: these are now the formulas most widely used for routine cataract surgery. Barrett Universal II (BUII) is a theoretical formula using a thin lens model with an internally derived relationship between the lens constants; it incorporates an estimate of posterior corneal power and is freely available online. Melles et al. (Ophthalmology, 2018) found Barrett Universal II outperformed the third and fourth-generation formulas tested across a large dataset spanning the full range of axial lengths. The Kane formula combines theoretical optics, regression, and artificial intelligence, incorporating axial length, corneal power, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, white-to-white diameter, and patient sex, and is freely available online. EVO 2.0 (Emmetropia Verifying Optical formula), developed by Tun Kuan Yeo, is a vergence-based formula with AI optimisation, also freely available, and is noted in several comparative studies for a narrow standard deviation of prediction error across a wide range of axial lengths. Hill-RBF 3.0 (Radial Basis Function) is a pattern-recognition formula trained on a large biometric dataset, and tends to perform best for eyes whose biometry falls within the range of its training dataset. Cooke K6 is a more recently introduced formula incorporating six biometric variables. PEARL-DGS is a ray-tracing formula from the Paris Descartes group, also freely available, and performs comparatively well in eyes with unusual anterior segment anatomy.

It is worth being cautious about generalising from any single comparative study. Formula accuracy comparisons depend heavily on the biometer used, the IOL model and its published constants, the patient population studied, and how "accuracy" is defined, whether that is mean absolute error, median absolute error, or the proportion of eyes within a given dioptric range of target. A formula that performs well in one study population, biometer, and IOL combination will not necessarily perform identically in another, which is why the comparative evidence below is a general guide rather than a fixed hierarchy. For background on the IOL designs themselves, rather than the formulas used to calculate their power, see our premium IOL guide.

Which Formula Is Most Accurate for Routine Cataract Surgery?

For eyes with average biometry, an axial length of roughly 22 to 25mm and corneal power of 42 to 46D, Barrett Universal II, Kane, EVO 2.0, and Hill-RBF 3.0 perform comparably, and most comparative studies report a large majority of eyes achieving a postoperative refraction within 0.5D of target with any of these formulas. No single formula has been shown to be definitively superior in every study.

Moshirfar et al. (Clin Ophthalmol, 2023) compared the Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, EVO, and Ladas Super Formula in a large comparative dataset. Kane had the lowest mean absolute error (0.238D) and median absolute error (0.151D); EVO had the lowest standard deviation (0.392D) and the highest proportion of eyes within 0.50D of target (87.38 percent); Barrett Universal II and EVO had marginally higher mean absolute error than Kane, but the authors noted these differences, while statistically significant, were small and likely not clinically meaningful for most patients.

Ma et al. (Am J Ophthalmol, 2025) compared 18 IOL formulas in 213 eyes measured with the IOLMaster 700. Barrett Universal II ranked highest in eyes with an anterior chamber depth of 3.5mm or greater. Formula performance also varied by corneal power band: Barrett True-K performed best in flatter corneas, below 42D, while Haigis performed best in steeper corneas, above 46D, illustrating that even among modern formulas, performance is not uniform across every combination of ocular parameters. Modern formulas as a group significantly outperformed the older third-generation formulas tested.

A toric IOL formula comparison (Castro-Alonso et al., Clin Ophthalmol, 2026) compared six formulas in 131 eyes implanted with the enVista toric IOL, including four formulas available through the ESCRS online calculator. Barrett, EVO, and Kane each achieved more than 93 percent of eyes within 0.50D of target for spherical equivalent, with similar precision, a standard deviation of 0.16 to 0.18D, across all three.

The key message for patients and referrers is that the difference between the leading modern formulas is small and often not clinically meaningful for an eye with average biometry. The choice of formula matters most, and diverges most between formulas, at the extremes of biometry, discussed next.

Which Formula Is Best for Short and Long Eyes?

Formula performance diverges at the extremes of axial length. In short eyes, below roughly 22mm, Hoffer Q, the updated Hoffer QST, and Haigis tend to perform well, while in long eyes, above roughly 26mm, Kane, Hill-RBF, and axial-length-adjusted formulas using the Wang-Koch correction generally outperform older regression-based formulas such as SRK/T.

For short eyes, Hoffer Q has historically been the preferred third-generation formula, and the newer Hoffer QST refines this further. Barrett Universal II and Kane also perform well in short eyes. SRK/T tends to overcorrect in short eyes, producing a myopic shift.

For long eyes, Vilaltella et al. (Int Ophthalmol, 2025) studied 72 eyes with an axial length of 26mm or greater and compared 12 formulas. Holladay 1 modified with the Wang-Koch axial length adjustment had the lowest median absolute error (0.215D), followed by Kane (0.233D), Barrett Universal II (0.246D), and EVO 2.0 and PEARL-DGS (0.252D each); Barrett, Kane, and EVO outperformed SRK/T in this cohort.

Stopyra et al. (Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 2025) compared 20 formulas in 153 eyes with a longer axial length range still, 26.00 to 29.47mm. In this specific, very long axial length population, SRK/T achieved the lowest root mean square absolute error (0.349) and the highest proportion of eyes within 0.50D (84.97 percent), a counterintuitive finding given SRK/T's older regression-based design; its statistical superiority in this study was specifically over Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and Olsen, not over every formula tested. This illustrates that "long eyes" as a category can behave differently depending on exactly how long the eye is, and that no single study population should be over-generalised to all long eyes.

Li et al. (PLoS One, 2024), a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on eyes with extremely long axial length, found Hill-RBF and Kane among the highest-ranked formulas for proportion of eyes within 0.50D, and confirmed that axial-length-adjusted formulas using the Wang-Koch correction outperformed unadjusted traditional formulas, roughly 54 to 57 percent of eyes within 0.50D for Wang-Koch-adjusted formulas compared with roughly 30 to 35 percent for unadjusted traditional formulas in the pooled analysis.

The Wang-Koch (W-K) axial length adjustment, first described by Wang, Shirayama, Ma, Kohnen, and Koch (J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011), is a correction applied to the measured axial length in long eyes. Because standard biometric formulas were originally optimised using data from eyes of average length, they carry a systematic bias in longer eyes; the Wang-Koch adjustment reduces the effective axial length value used in the calculation for eyes above approximately 25mm, compensating for this formula-specific bias rather than correcting a measurement error.

What Is Total Keratometry and Why Does It Improve IOL Calculations?

Total keratometry (TK) measures the combined refractive power of both the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces directly, rather than estimating posterior corneal power from the anterior surface alone. Using TK values in IOL calculations reduces a source of systematic error present in formulas that rely on an assumed anterior-to-posterior corneal ratio.

Standard keratometry measures only the anterior corneal surface and applies a fixed index of refraction, typically 1.3375, to estimate total corneal power. This assumption introduces error whenever the true anterior-to-posterior ratio in a given eye deviates from the population average used to derive that fixed index. The IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss) and Argos (Movu) biometers measure TK using swept-source OCT, directly imaging both corneal surfaces rather than assuming a relationship between them.

In eyes with normal corneas, TK and standard K values are very similar, and the difference between them is small. The difference is largest in post-refractive eyes, where laser surgery has altered the normal anterior-to-posterior relationship, and in eyes with posterior corneal curvature abnormalities such as keratoconus. Barrett True-K's TK mode uses measured total keratometry values directly, improving effective lens position prediction accuracy in these more complex corneas. It is worth noting that some formulas, such as Haigis, derive ELP primarily from measured anterior chamber depth rather than corneal power; total keratometry can still be substituted for standard K in these formulas to provide a more accurate total corneal power input.

How Does IOL Calculation Differ After LASIK or PRK?

Cataract surgery after previous laser refractive surgery is one of the more challenging biometry scenarios in ophthalmology. Standard formulas consistently underestimate IOL power in eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK, leading to a hyperopic surprise, in which the patient ends up more long-sighted than planned.

There are three principal sources of error. First, a keratometric index error: standard keratometry assumes a fixed ratio between anterior and posterior corneal curvature, and LASIK flattens the anterior surface without meaningfully changing the posterior surface, altering that ratio and causing standard formulas to overestimate true corneal power, which in turn underestimates the IOL power needed. Second, an ELP prediction error: most modern formulas use corneal power as an input when predicting where the IOL will sit after surgery, and the artificially flattened post-LASIK K value leads these formulas to predict a more anterior lens position than actually occurs, again underestimating IOL power. Third, measurement uncertainty: the LASIK ablation zone creates a flattened, aspherical anterior corneal surface that some biometers may not measure accurately at the corneal vertex.

Ferguson et al. (J Cataract Refract Surg, 2022) reviewed post-refractive IOL calculation strategies and found that Barrett True-K, the ASCRS post-refractive calculator average, and Haigis-L produced prediction errors not significantly different from zero in eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK, while several other formulas showed a systematic bias.

Li et al. (J Radiat Res Appl Sci, 2025) compared five formulas, Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, EVO 2.0, and Kane, in 65 eyes with previous myopic LASIK. Kane, which is not validated for post-refractive eyes, performed clearly worse than the other formulas (median absolute error 1.36D); Barrett True-K and Haigis-L had the lowest median absolute error (0.73D), with EVO 2.0 performing comparably (0.76D) and Shammas-PL close behind. This confirms that a formula validated for eyes with unoperated corneas, such as Kane, should not be relied upon in post-refractive eyes even though it performs well in routine cataract surgery.

De Rosa et al. (J Clin Med, 2025) assessed the Barrett True-K formula's total keratometry mode, using measured posterior corneal astigmatism from Pentacam Scheimpflug imaging rather than a predicted value, in 49 eyes of 41 patients with previous laser vision correction. Using measured rather than predicted posterior corneal data improved the formula's accuracy, supporting the use of measured total keratometry wherever it is available in post-refractive eyes.

Boccia et al. (J Clin Med, 2025) compared five formulas, Barrett True-K No History, EVO 2.0 Post-Hyperopic LASIK/PRK, Haigis-L, PEARL-DGS, and Shammas, specifically in eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK or PRK, a less commonly studied population than post-myopic eyes. In a cohort of 107 eyes, the Shammas formula performed significantly worse than the other four, which did not differ significantly from one another.

It is worth being explicit with patients about the accuracy ceiling in this group. Even with a specialist post-refractive formula, published series report the proportion of eyes achieving a postoperative refraction within 0.5D of target after previous myopic LASIK or PRK anywhere from around 55 percent to around 90 percent, depending on the specific study, formula, and biometer used, a wider and generally lower range than the roughly 75 to 85 percent typically reported in eyes without previous refractive surgery. Patients with previous LASIK or PRK should be counselled explicitly, before surgery, that some degree of residual refractive error is more likely than in an eye without previous refractive surgery, and that glasses, contact lenses, or a subsequent laser enhancement procedure may be needed afterwards.

In practice, there are two broad approaches. The history-based method uses pre-LASIK and post-LASIK refraction and keratometry data, where available, to calculate the actual change in corneal power caused by the laser surgery directly, sometimes supplemented by contact lens over-refraction. The no-history method, more commonly needed since pre-LASIK records are often unavailable, relies entirely on current biometric measurements using formulas such as Barrett True-K No History, Haigis-L, or Shammas. The ASCRS online post-refractive calculator, which averages the output of several post-refractive formulas, is a widely used approach to reduce the systematic bias any single formula might carry, and the IOLMaster 700's Barrett True-K TK mode uses measured total keratometry from swept-source OCT directly rather than an assumed value.

Radial keratotomy (RK) presents additional challenges beyond LASIK or PRK. The radial cuts create unpredictable corneal shape changes that continue to evolve over time and fluctuate with diurnal variation, and accuracy remains limited even with the best available formulas. PEARL-DGS and Barrett True-K with RK history entry are commonly used options. Moshirfar et al. (Clin Ophthalmol, 2024) studied 11 eyes of 7 patients with a combined history of RK and LASIK, a particularly challenging biometric group. The 3C formula (Camellin-Calossi-Camellin) achieved 91 percent of eyes within 0.25D of target, with the lowest mean absolute error (0.088D) of the formulas compared, outperforming Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, PEARL-DGS, and the other formulas tested in this small series.

How Is IOL Power Calculated in Eyes With Keratoconus?

Keratoconus distorts corneal curvature and creates asymmetric, irregular astigmatism, which makes IOL power prediction meaningfully less accurate than in eyes without corneal ectasia. The current evidence, while still limited in size, most consistently supports Barrett True-K with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) and the Kane KCN formula for keratoconic eyes.

Keratoconus steepens the cornea irregularly, and standard keratometry may measure different corneal zones differently, with the apical power differing from the mean corneal power ordinarily used in biometry. The posterior corneal surface is disproportionately affected compared with normal eyes, which is why posterior corneal measurement using Scheimpflug or swept-source OCT imaging is particularly important in this group. Mild keratoconus, Amsler-Krumeich stage 1 to 2, can often be managed with modified standard formulas, while more severe keratoconus is considerably more challenging. A systematic hyperopic shift is common in keratoconus, because the irregular cornea tends to cause formulas to overestimate true corneal power, which leads to IOL underpowering and residual hyperopia.

Reitblat et al. (Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2025), a network meta-analysis registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023483119) pooling 623 eyes across 9 studies, found that Barrett True-K with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) ranked highest across multiple accuracy metrics, ahead of BTK with predicted posterior cornea, Barrett Universal II, EVO, Kane KCN, Hill-RBF, Haigis, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and the Holladay formulas. Kane KCN showed a potential advantage specifically in more severe keratoconus, while EVO performed comparatively well in milder disease. The authors noted the evidence base remains limited relative to comparative formula research in eyes without keratoconus.

A second systematic review and network meta-analysis (Aljahdali et al., Clin Ophthalmol, 2026), pooling 530 eyes across 7 studies using Bayesian methods, similarly found that BTK Measured, equivalent to BTK MPC, consistently ranked highest for mean prediction error. The difference between Kane KCN and BTK Measured was minimal, a mean difference of 0.0004D (95% CI −1.05 to 1.05), indicating no clinically meaningful difference between the two despite BTK Measured's higher overall ranking. Holladay 2 Original had the least accurate mean prediction error of the formulas compared.

Hatami et al. (J Ophthalmic Vis Res, 2025) reported a retrospective case series of 47 eyes from 30 patients with keratoconus. In a subgroup of 11 eyes with complete anterior chamber depth data available across all formulas compared, Barrett True-K and Kane KCN achieved 54.5 percent of eyes within 0.50D of target, while Barrett Universal II achieved the highest proportion within 1.00D (90.9 percent). Because these figures come from an 11-eye subgroup rather than the full 47-eye series, they should be read as illustrative of a small case series rather than a precise estimate of expected accuracy in keratoconus generally.

Gershoni, Barrett, and Sella (Ther Adv Ophthalmol, 2025) proposed a staged clinical decision pathway for IOL calculation in stable keratoconus, recommending BTK MPC as a first-choice formula where Scheimpflug data is available, with the recommended approach varying according to keratoconus severity. Graham Barrett, a co-author, is the developer of the Barrett formula suite, a potential conflict of interest disclosed in the paper itself.

Cataract surgery in eyes with keratoconus consistently achieves lower refractive predictability than surgery in eyes without keratoconus, and this is worth discussing with patients before surgery. In Hatami et al.'s small case series above, only around half of the eyes examined reached within 0.50D of target using the best-performing formulas, a considerably lower proportion than typically reported in eyes without keratoconus. Patients should be counselled that glasses or contact lenses are likely to still be needed after surgery. For mild, stable keratoconus, outcomes are often reasonable; for more advanced keratoconus, setting realistic expectations before surgery is an important part of the consultation. Diffractive premium IOLs, including multifocal and trifocal designs, are not generally used in eyes with keratoconus, because irregular astigmatism reduces the optical performance these lens designs depend on. For general information about the underlying condition, see our keratoconus guide.

What Role Does the Biometry Device Play in IOL Calculation Accuracy?

The biometry device used influences accuracy alongside the formula itself. Swept-source OCT biometers, such as the IOLMaster 700 and Argos, provide more comprehensive measurements, including total keratometry and lens thickness, than older optical or ultrasound biometers, particularly in complex eyes.

IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss): a swept-source OCT biometer measuring axial length, keratometry, total keratometry, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and white-to-white diameter. It is a commonly used device in modern practice, and its TK mode is compatible with multiple modern formulas.

Argos (Movu): another swept-source OCT biometer with similar capabilities to the IOLMaster 700; the Olsen formula is integrated directly into its software.

Pentacam (Oculus): a Scheimpflug imaging system rather than a biometer in the conventional sense, but one that measures total corneal power directly, including Belin-Ambrosio elevation maps and posterior corneal curvature. It is used as an adjunct in complex cases, including post-refractive and keratoconic eyes. Pentacam measurement is also used for other pre-operative parameters relevant to IOL selection, including pupil size, discussed in our guide to pupil size and IOL selection.

Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit): an optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer measuring axial length, corneal radii, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, retinal thickness, and white-to-white diameter. It does not use swept-source OCT and does not provide native total keratometry measurements, but interfaces with multiple third-party formulas through its EyeSuite software, including Barrett Universal II, Kane, EVO 2.0, and Hill-RBF 3.0. The Lenstar is widely used and well validated, with comparative studies showing axial length measurement accuracy comparable to the IOLMaster in normal eyes. For complex eyes requiring total keratometry, a Pentacam or a swept-source OCT device is used as an adjunct.

IOLMaster 500 (older): a partial coherence interferometry biometer that does not measure total keratometry or lens thickness. It remains widely used but has limitations in more complex eyes compared with the newer swept-source devices above.

I use the Lenstar and IOLMaster 700 in combination depending on the clinical scenario, with Pentacam providing additional corneal data in complex cases including post-refractive eyes and keratoconus. In eyes with more complex anatomy, whether post-refractive, keratoconic, or with unusual anterior segment findings, using more than one device in combination provides complementary data that can improve prediction accuracy compared with relying on a single biometer alone.

What Should Patients Expect in Terms of Refractive Accuracy After Cataract Surgery?

In eyes with average biometry using modern formulas, most published series report roughly 75 to 85 percent of patients achieving a postoperative refraction within 0.5D of their planned target, and well over 90 percent within 1.0D. In more complex eyes, this proportion falls, sometimes substantially.

For eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK, even using a specialist post-refractive formula, published series report anywhere from around 55 to around 90 percent of eyes within 0.5D of target, a wider and generally lower range than in eyes without previous refractive surgery. For eyes with previous radial keratotomy, accuracy is generally lower still and more variable between individual cases; Moshirfar et al.'s (2024) small series above achieved a high proportion within a tight target only with a specific formula in a very small cohort, illustrating how much formula selection and individual corneal anatomy can affect outcomes in this group. In keratoconus, Hatami et al.'s (2025) case series above found only around half of eyes within 0.50D of target using the best-performing formulas in a small subgroup, appreciably below the proportion typically reported in eyes without keratoconus.

Gale et al. (Eye, 2009) established a widely cited NHS benchmark standard of 85 percent of eyes within 1.0D of target refraction after routine cataract surgery, a useful historical reference point that predates several of the formula generations discussed in this guide and against which more modern outcomes can be compared.

I discuss refractive accuracy explicitly with every patient before surgery. For patients with previous laser refractive surgery, I spend extra time explaining that achieving the target refraction is more challenging and less predictable than in an eye without previous surgery, and that glasses, contact lenses, or a subsequent laser touch-up may be needed after cataract surgery. This expectation-setting is as important a part of the process as the formula choice itself.

Arranging an assessment

If you have been referred for cataract surgery, or if you are an optometrist or GP referring a patient with previous laser refractive surgery or keratoconus, accurate IOL power calculation is one of the more important technical steps in achieving a good outcome. Dr Ross MacIntyre brings subspecialty fellowship training in complex cataract and refractive surgery from the Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, to the assessment and planning of these more complex biometric cases, and further detail on his surgical practice and experience is available at drmacintyre.com/cataract-surgery-melbourne.

I consult at Northern Eye Consultants, Northpark Private Hospital, Bundoora, and at Bass Coast Eye Centre, Wonthaggi. A referral from your GP or optometrist is required.

Contact Northern Eye Consultants to arrange an appointment. For referral information for GPs and optometrists, visit the Northern Eye Consultants for-referrers page.

References

1. Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas. Ophthalmology. 2018;125(2):169-178.
2. Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C. Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(10):1490-1500.
3. Moshirfar M, Sulit CA, Brown AH, Irwin C, Ronquillo YC, Hoopes PC. Comparing the Accuracy of the Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, EVO, and Ladas Super Formula IOL Power Calculation Formulas. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:2643-2652.
4. Ma S, Li C, Sun J, Yang J, Wen K, Chen X, Zhao F, Sun X, Tian F. Comparative Analysis of Eighteen IOL Power Calculation Formulas Using a Modified Formula Performance Index Across Diverse Biometric Parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025;273:221-230.
5. Castro-Alonso FJ, Hernández Vián R, Jiménez-García M, Marquina-Martín S, Puzo M. Comparison of Prediction Accuracy of Six Toric IOL Power Calculation Formulas, Including Four Available on the ESCRS Online Calculator. Clin Ophthalmol. 2026;20:622041.
6. Vilaltella M, Cid-Bertomeu P, Serés-Noriega T, Huerva V. Accuracy of 12 IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes. Int Ophthalmol. 2025;45(1):264.
7. Stopyra W, Voytsekhivskyy O, Grzybowski A. Comparison of the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2025;14(3):100198.
8. Li X, Wang X, Liao X, Grzybowski A. How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2024;19(1):e0296771.
9. Wang L, Shirayama M, Ma XJ, Kohnen T, Koch DD. Optimizing intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with axial lengths above 25.0 mm. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(11):2018-2027.
10. Ferguson TJ, et al. IOL power calculations after LASIK or PRK: Barrett True-K biometer-only calculation strategy yields equivalent outcomes as a multiple formula approach. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(7):784-789.
11. Li E, Wang Z, Yu Y, Wang X, Jia Y, Yue P, Ding X, Chen T, Song X. Accuracy comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in post-LASIK myopic eyes. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2025;18(3):101820.
12. De Rosa G, Criscuolo D, Longo L, Allegrini D, Romano MR. IOL Power Calculation After Laser-Based Refractive Surgery: Measured vs. Predicted Posterior Corneal Astigmatism Using the Barrett True-K Formula. J Clin Med. 2025;14(11):4010.
13. Boccia R, Lanza M, Luciano G, Fattore I, Serra L, Ambrosio S, Abbate F, Simonelli F. Evaluation of Reliability of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Hyperopic Refractive Surgery. J Clin Med. 2025;14(6):1990.
14. Moshirfar M, Ayesha A, Jaafar M, Han K, Omidvarnia S, Altaf A, Stoakes I, Hoopes P. Precision in IOL Calculation for Cataract Patients with Prior History of Combined RK and LASIK. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024;18:1277-1286.
15. Reitblat O, Sella R, Zlatkin R, Bahar I, Lerman TT. Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: network meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2025;53(4):356-373.
16. Aljahdali FF, Albadri M, Sharif RK, Alharbi BJ, Alzahrani AA, BinYamin AT, Bin Helayel H. Predictive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Cataract Surgery in Keratoconus: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Clin Ophthalmol. 2026;20.
17. Hatami F, Mirzaei SK, Javadi MA, Feizi S, Safi S, Hosseini SB. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Cataract Surgery in Patients with Keratoconus. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2025;20.
18. Gershoni A, Barrett GD, Sella R. Advances in IOL calculations in patients with keratoconus. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2025;17:25158414251348882.
19. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M. Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (Lond). 2009;23(1):149-152.