First Experience of Using Segmental Optical Biometry for IOL Power Calculation in the Russian Federation

Purpose. To evaluate the results of segmented optical biometry for IOL power calculation in a short-term follow-up period. Patients and methods. 68 patients (90 eyes) after implantation of various IOL models were included in the study. The mean age was 70.43 ± 9.55 years (44–89 years). Women predominated in the sample (n = 49; 72 %). Optical biometry was performed with the Argos device (Alcon, USA) and IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss, Germany). IOL calculation was performed based on Argos data using the formulas: Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO, Hill-RBF, Hoffer QST, Kane, Pearl DGS. Phacoemulsification with IOL implantation was performed using the standard technique. The observation period was 1 month. Results. One month after the operation there was a significant increase in the distance UCVA (from 0.1 (0.04; 0.20) before the operation to 0.7 (0.188; 1.00)), distance BCVA (from 0.5 (0.3; 0.8) to 1.0 (0.9; 1.0)), and a decrease in IOP from 15 (13; 16.25) to 13 (11; 15) mmHg. The absolute error was significantly lower for the Cooke K6 formula compared with Kane (0.230 (0.130; 0.389) and 0.268 (0.143; 0.405) D, respectively, p = 0.0005) and for the Hill-RBF formula compared with Hoffer QST (0.190 (0.086; 0.399) and 0.248 (0.133; 0.478) D, respectively, p = 0.0007). The share of eyes with refraction within ±0.25 D of the predicted value was significantly higher for the Hill-RBF formula compared with Kane (62.22% and 45.56%, respectively, p = 0.002). The proportion of eyes with refraction within ±0.5, ±1.0, and ±1.5 D of the predicted value did not differ significantly between the formulas. Axial length (AL) measured with Argos, was significantly longer in “short” eyes (AL≤ 22.0 mm) and shorter in “average” and “long” eyes (AL≥ 26.0 mm) compared to IOLMaster 700. Conclusion. This work presents an analysis of the first experience of using segmented optical biometry for calculation of various types of IOLs in the Russian Federation. A favorable clinical and functional effect and a high frequency of achieving target refraction values were noted. The Hill-RBF formula demonstrates some advantage over the Kane and Hoffer QST formulas, and the Cooke K6 formula over Kane.

1. Cicinelli MV, Buchan JC, Nicholson M, Varadaraj V, Khanna RC. Cataracts. Lancet. 2023;401(10374):377–389. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01839-6.

2. Davis G. The Evolution of Cataract Surgery. Mo Med. 2016;113(1):58–62.

3. Grzybowski A. Recent developments in cataract surgery. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(22):1540. doi: 10.21037/atm-2020-rcs-16.

4. Hashemi H, Jamali A, Rezavn F, Hashemi A, Khabazkhoob M. Residual refractive errors in pseudophakic eyes and related factors: a population-based study. Int J Ophthalmol. 2023;16(5):778–786. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2023.05.16.

5. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Likh IA, Tsygankov AYu. Intraocular Lens Optic Power Calculation on “Short” Eyes. A Review. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2022;19(2):272– 279 (In Russ.) doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2022-2-272-279.

6. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AI. IOL optic power calculation in patients with eye axial length 24–28 mm without preceding refractive surgery. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2016;13(2):89–96 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2016-2-89-96.

7. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu Legkih SL, Likh IA. Biometry in IOL optic power calculation as a factor of successful cataract surgery. Cataract and refractive surgery. 2016;16(2):15–22 (In Russ.).

8. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, Rainer G, Vass C, Hitzenberger CK. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):524–534. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9394(98)00113-5.

9. Pathak M, Sahu V, Kumar A, Kaur K, Gurnani B. Current Concepts and Recent Updates of Optical Biometry — A Comprehensive Review. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024;18:1191–1206. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S464538.

10. Wang L, Cao D, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Calculation of Axial Length Using a Single Group Refractive Index versus Using Different Refractive Indices for Each Ocular Segment: Theoretical Study and Refractive Outcomes. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(5):663–670. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2018.12.046.

11. Yang CM, Lim DH, Kim HJ, Chung TY. Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer. PLoS One. 2019;14(10):e0223114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223114.

12. Multack S, Plummer N, Smits G, Hall B. Randomized Trial Comparing Prediction Accuracy of Two Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:2423–2428. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S407538.

13. Porwolik M, Porwolik A, Mrukwa-Kominek E. Evaluation of Selected Biometric Parameters in Cataract Patients-A Comparison between Argos® and IOLMaster 700®: Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(7):1057. doi: 10.3390/medicina60071057.

14. Tañá-Rivero P, Aguilar-Córcoles S, Tañá-Sanz P., Tañá-Sanz S., Montés-Micó R. Axial length acquisition success rates and agreement of four optical biometers and one ultrasound biometer in eyes with dense cataracts. Eye Vis (Lond). 2023;10(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s40662-023-00352-3.

15. Hussaindeen JR, Mariam EG, Arunachalam S, Bhavatharini R, Gopalakrishnan A, Narayanan A. Comparison of axial length using a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer — ARGOS with partial coherence interferometry — based biometer — IOLMaster among school children. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209356.

16. Shammas HJ, Ortiz S, Shammas MC, Kim SH, Chong C. Biometry measurements using a new large-coherence-length swept-source optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(1):50–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.042.

17. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Antonov EA. Non-diffractive intraocular lens with extended depth of focus optical power calculation. Point of view. East — West. 2024;11(1):11–15. doi: 10.25276/2410-1257-2024-1-11–15.

18. Pershin KB, Pashinova NF, Tsygankov AYu, Kosova IV. Results of Implantation of a New Hydrophobic Acrylic Monofocal Intraocular Lens in a Preloaded Injector. Ophthalmology in Russia. 2023;20(2):233–238 (In Russ.). doi: 10.18008/1816-5095-2023-2-233-238.

19. Hata S, Kobayashi M. Refractive accuracy of the new Barrett formula using segmented axial length compared with that of the traditional Barrett Universal II formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2025;51(4):294–299. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001609.

20. Shammas HJ, Taroni L, Pellegrini M, Shammas MC, Jivrajka RV. Accuracy of newer intraocular lens power formulas in short and long eyes using sum-of-segments biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48(10):1113–1120. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000958.

21. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(3):368–376. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.031.