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: 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.

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 analyse the outcomes comprehensively by reviewing established and newer techniques. The eyes included in the 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 is a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography system was used in the study. In measuring the lens power, values were obtained using Barrett Universal II and Ladas Super Formula. These values were compared. Postoperative assessments were conducted at 1-3 months, and 3-12 months, including spherical equivalent. In our study, 210 eyes were examined. 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 Formula were compared. The means of the two calculations were found to be very close, and no statistically significant difference was observed between them. 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 difference. Formulas represent significant advances in ophthalmology and significantly improve visual outcomes; however, differences in their methodology and predictive accuracy warrant further analysis.

Akademisyen Yayınevi yöneticileri, yaklaşık 30 yıllık yayın tecrübesini, kendi tüzel kişiliklerine aktararak uzun zamandan beri, ticarî faaliyetlerini sürdürmektedir. Anılan süre içinde, başta sağlık ve sosyal bilimler, kültürel ve sanatsal konular dahil 1000 kitabı yayımlamanın gururu içindedir. Uluslararası yayınevi olmanın alt yapısını tamamlayan Akademisyen, Türkçe ve yabancı dillerde yayın yapmanın yanında, küresel bir marka yaratmanın peşindedir. Bilimsel ve düşünsel çalışmaların kalıcı belgeleri sayılan kitaplar, bilgi kayıt ortamı olarak yüzlerce yılın tanıklarıdır. Matbaanın icadıyla varoluşunu sağlam temellere oturtan kitabın geleceği, her ne kadar yeni buluşların yörüngesine taşınmış olsa da, daha uzun süre hayatımızda yer edineceği muhakkaktır. Akademisyen Yayınevi, kendi adını taşıyan “Bilimsel Araştırmalar Kitabı” serisiyle Türkçe ve İngilizce olarak, uluslararası nitelik ve nicelikte, kitap yayımlama sürecini başlatmış bulunmaktadır. Her yıl Mart ve Eylül aylarında gerçekleşecek olan yayımlama süreci, tematik alt başlıklarla devam edecektir.Bu süreci destekleyen tüm hocalarımıza ve arka planda yer alan herkese teşekkür borçluyuz.