Background: The most widely used contemporary intraocular lens power calculation formulas are the Kane formula, Barrett Universal II formula, Hill–Radial Basis Function, and Ladas Super Formula, each of which was developed to improve postoperative refractive accuracy. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of these formulas to evaluate their predictive accuracy across diverse biometric profiles. Methods: A total of 210 eyes that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed in this study. This study was designed as a retrospective observational investigation. The biometric parameters of the intraocular lens were evaluated using the ARGOS optical biometer. Refractive intraocular lens power calculations were performed using the formulas, and the resulting values were systematically compared to assess predictive accuracy. In our research, a parametric approach was adopted by applying ANOVA repeated measures analysis. Multiple measurements were evaluated through homogeneity of covariances. Pairwise comparisons between formula-derived values were conducted using the Bonferroni test to identify significant differences. A paired-sample t-test was used to compare the spherical equivalent levels calculated at the first and last controls. Potential correlations were examined using Pearson correlation analysis. Results: A statistically significant difference was observed between formulas. The differences among the formulas were caused by the values obtained from the Ladas Super Formula being significantly higher than the others. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the data obtained from the formulas. The spheric equivalent values were similar, with no statistically significant difference. Conclusions: This study reinforces the notion that modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas exhibit a high degree of accuracy and correlation in predicting postoperative refractive outcomes.

Background/Objectives: Precise intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations are essential for achieving optimal refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study compares the predictive accuracy of swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and optical low-coherence interferometry (OLCI) in biometry measurements and refractive outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included 170 eyes from 102 patients undergoing cataract surgery. Biometry was performed using Argos^® (MOVU Inc., Komaki, Japan) (SS-OCT) and Aladdin^® (Topcon Corp., Tokyo, Japan) (OLCI), measuring axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white to white (WTW), and keratometry. Results: Postoperative outcomes, including uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity (UDVA, CDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), and refractive error, were assessed at one and six months. Predictive accuracy was evaluated by mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D to ±1.00 D of predicted SE. Conclusions: Both technologies achieved high refractive accuracy, with 97.7% (SS-OCT) and 97.2% (OLCI) of eyes within ±1.00 D of target SE. SS-OCT demonstrated superior axis alignment, while OLCI provided enhanced postoperative SE. Significant differences were observed in LT (p = 0.030) and ACD (p = 0.009). Postoperative UDVA of 20/20 or better was achieved in 98% of SS-OCT eyes and 100% of OLCI eyes. SS-OCT and OLCI provide comparable refractive outcomes and high reliability in cataract surgery.

Objective: This study analyzed and compared the results of adaptive optics (AO) and fundus autofluorescence (FAF) in various maculopathies.

(1) Background: This study aims to evaluate retinal perfusion by optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) without diabetic retinopathy (DR). (2) Methods: Thirty-one patients affected by T1D were enrolled. All participants were evaluated using OCTA. The foveal avascular zone (FAZ) and superficial and deep macular vessel density (VD) were analyzed. The correlation of these parameters with metabolic factors such as body mass index (BMI), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and the type of insulin therapy (multiple daily injections, MDI vs. continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, CSII) was determined. (3) Results: None of the OCTA parameters were significantly different between the groups. The patients’ HbA1C level did not influence any of the OCTA parameters. The use of MDI tended to reduce the parafoveal and perifoveal deep VD (p = 0.048 and p = 0.021, respectively) compared to CSII. An elevated BMI tended to increase the deep macular (p = 0.005) and perifoveal VD (p = 0.006). (4) Conclusion: VD and FAZ are normal in pubescent children with T1D without signs of DR. Treatment with CSII may be a better choice compared to MDI, as CSII may be protective against retinal microvascular damage. Our results indicate the need for new clinical parameters of glycemic control in addition to HbA1c which could assess the risk of DR.

Background/Objectives: Accurate biometric measurements are critical for achieving optimal refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study evaluated the agreement of biometric measurements between a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS–OCT) biometer (Argos^®, Movu Inc.) and an optical low-coherence interferometry (OLCI) biometer (Aladdin^®, Topcon Corp.). Parameters analyzed included axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), keratometry (K1, K2), and white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW). Methods: A total of 170 eyes were examined, and agreement was assessed using Bland–Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Excellent agreement was observed for AL (ICC = 0.975), ACD (ICC = 0.960), LT (ICC = 0.951), K1 (ICC = 0.921), and K2 (ICC = 0.927). Moderate agreement was found for astigmatism axis (ICC = 0.655) and cylinder power (ICC = 0.891). Poor agreement was noted for astigmatism-related Jackson cross-cylinder vectors J0 (ICC = 0.334) and J45 (ICC = −0.311), as well as for WTW (ICC = 0.338). Bland–Altman plots demonstrated narrow limits of agreement for most parameters, with mean differences of 0.009 mm for AL and 0.06 mm for ACD. Conclusions: Both devices demonstrated high degrees of agreement for core biometric parameters, supporting their clinical interchangeability. However, the variability in WTW and astigmatism-related measurements highlights the need for caution when precise corrections are required.

Background: Pursuing optimal visual outcomes following cataract surgery remains a cornerstone of modern ophthalmology. Central to this objective is the precise calculation of intraocular lens power. However, despite significant advancements in biometric measurements and computational algorithms, variability in refractive outcomes continues to pose a challenge. This study aims to analyze the outcomes comprehensively by reviewing established and newer techniques. Methods: The eyes included in this study were evaluated based on various criteria, and a total of 210 eyes which met these criteria were included in the research. Our study is a retrospectively designed observational research study. The study included individuals who had experienced successful IOL implantation to correct refractive errors or cataracts. The ARGOS SS-OCT device, a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography system, was used in this study. In measuring the lens power, values were obtained using the Barrett Universal II and Ladas Super Formulas. These values were compared. Postoperative assessments were conducted at 1–3 months and 3–12 months, including spherical equivalents. Results: The mean age of the participants was 63.44 ± 11.62 years. The study’s two most frequently used lens brands were ALCON and ZEISS. The lens powers calculated using the Barrett Universal II and Ladas Super Formulas were compared. The mean values calculated using both formulas were highly similar, with no statistically significant differences observed. We compared the spherical equivalent values calculated during the participants’ first and second postoperative follow-ups. The spherical equivalent values were similar, with no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Formulas represent significant advances in ophthalmology and significantly improve visual outcomes; however, differences in their methodology and predictive accuracy warrant further analysis.