[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-452590-105":59,"doc-detail-452590-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","accuracy-of-new-generation-and-traditional-intraocular-lens-power-calculation-formulas-in-pediatric-primary-implantation-article","Accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric primary implantation - article","","A retrospective consecutive case-series study from Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center compares prediction accuracy of new-generation versus traditional intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric primary IOL implantation. Prediction error across Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, EVO 2.0, and Ladas Super Formula was analyzed with subgroup testing by age, axial length, keratometry, surgical procedure, and IOL type. Results indicate formula-dependent performance, with younger age and shorter axial length predicting refractive surprise.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/accuracy-of-new-generation-and-traditional-intraocular-lens-power-calculation-formulas-in-pediatric-primary-implantation-article/452590/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/accuracy-of-new-generation-and-traditional-intraocular-lens-power-calculation-formulas-in-pediatric-primary-implantation-article/452590.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"OmBimo","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":44},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Which IOL power calculation formulas were compared in the pediatric study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study evaluated Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, EVO 2.0, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF).","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What factors influenced refractive prediction errors across formulas?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Younger age and shorter preoperative axial length predicted significant refractive surprise across formulas, while older age and longer axial length showed improved predictive accuracy.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Did surgical procedure or IOL type significantly affect prediction accuracy?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"No significant differences in prediction accuracy were found between eyes with different surgical procedures or different IOL types.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},452590,1790794966,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":44,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},962090893581,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","44  \n ARTICLE  \nAccuracy of new-generation and   traditional intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric primary  \nimplantation  \nJiaxin Jin, MD, Yanyu Shen, MD, Yiwen Qu, MD, Hui Chen, MD, PhD, Xiaohang Wu, MD, PhD, Ling Jin, MS, Yizhi Liu, MD, PhD, Haotian Lin, MD, PhD, Zhenzhen Liu, MD, PhD  \nPurpose: To compare the prediction accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric primary IOL implantation and identify factors influencing refractive prediction errors.  \nSetting: Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China.  \nDesign: Retrospective consecutive case-series study.  \nMethods: The prediction error (PE) was calculated for Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) in pediatric primary IOL implantation. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, axial length (AL), average keratometry, surgical procedure, and IOL type. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with significant refractive surprise.  \nResults: 83 patients (108 eyes) were included in the study. Significant differences in both PE and absolute PE were observed  \namong formulas (P \u003C .001) . The SRK/T and Kane formulas demonstrated lower mean predicted error (ME) and median absolute error (MedAE), whereas LSF and Haigis formulas showed higher ME and MedAE, respectively. Patients who were older age and had longer AL exhibited improved predictive accuracy. No significant differences in prediction accuracy were found between eyes with different surgical procedures or different IOL types. Multivariate regression analysis showed that younger age and shorter preoperative AL were predictors of significant refractive surprise across formulas.  \nConclusions: The predictive accuracy of IOL formulas in pediatric primary IOL implantation remains suboptimal, with the SRK/T and Kane formulas performing relatively better. Younger age and shorter AL remain major predictors of refractive surprise, while surgical procedure and IOL type show no significant association. Further development of pediatric-specific IOL power formulas is warranted.  \nJ Cataract Refract Surg 2026; 52:44–51 Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of ASCRS andESCRS  \nPrimary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation serves as  \nthe standard method for correcting refractive errors  \nin pediatric cataract patients after cataract extraction.1–3 The predictive accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas is of paramount importance for postoperative refractive outcomes and subsequent visual development because it hinges on the precise prediction of effective lens position (ELP) .4,5 Current formulas have shown high accuracy in adults undergoing primary IOLimplantation, with 93.5% to 100.0% of eyes achieving a prediction error (PE) within ±1.00 diopter (D) .4,6 Even in complex cases, such as eyes with axial lengths (AL) >26 mm  \nor those that have undergone pars plana vitrectomy, these formulas have maintained accuracy.7–9 However, several factors heighten the challenges associated with IOL power calculation in pediatric patients. The hyperopic target refraction required to compensate for future myopic shifts in children, combined with the unique characteristics of pediatric eyes—including shorter AL, steeper corneal curvature, shallower anterior chamber depth, dynamic ocular growth, and developmental refractive shifts—along with the routine surgical practice of posterior capsulotomy and anterior vitrectomy, all contribute to these challenges. 1,10–12 Current IOL formulas have shown suboptimal predictive  \nSubmitted: May 24, 2025 | Final revision submitted: July 22, 2025 | Accepted: August 12, 2025  \nFrom the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provinci","cbCaioBqO0CaLkRs","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioBqO0CaLkRs","pdf",996305,"English","# Purpose\n# Setting and Design\n# Methods\n## Subgroup analyses\n## Multivariate regression\n# Results\n# Conclusions","[{\"question\":\"Which IOL power calculation formulas were compared in the pediatric study?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluated Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, EVO 2.0, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF).\"},{\"question\":\"What factors influenced refractive prediction errors across formulas?\",\"answer\":\"Younger age and shorter preoperative axial length predicted significant refractive surprise across formulas, while older age and longer axial length showed improved predictive accuracy.\"},{\"question\":\"Did surgical procedure or IOL type significantly affect prediction accuracy?\",\"answer\":\"No significant differences in prediction accuracy were found between eyes with different surgical procedures or different IOL types.\"}]","Accuracy of new-generation and traditional intraocular lens power calculation formulas in pediatric primary implantation - article | PDF",1790737451]