Cataract surgery and intraocular lenses
In an independent 275-eye validation set, selecting formulas by AL, K and ACD reduced mean absolute error to 0.24 D and placed 89.1% within ±0.50 D.
doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000002055In a prospective 114-eye cohort, both versions produced similar binocular vision from distance to near, while halo burden remained an important limitation.
doi: 10.1155/joph/3788361In 804 eyes, a toric IOL reduced mean residual cylinder by 0.05 D but did not improve overall uncorrected or corrected vision.
doi: 10.1007/s40123-026-01483-1In a 120-eye trial, the 13×11 mm ring better stabilized the IOL and more often achieved posterior capsule contact, but study power was only 61%.
doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20251125-05In 59 eyes after secondary Yamane fixation, EVO, Barrett, Hoffer Q and SRK/T did not differ in accuracy; every formula showed directional myopic prediction error.
doi: 10.1186/s12886-026-04934-2In 98 eyes with a capsular tension ring, Barrett Universal II and Holladay II had lower absolute error, but all four formulas showed a mild hyperopic shift.
doi: 10.4274/tjo.galenos.2026.33338In a 325-eye series, O Formula had lower error than four contemporary formulas, but did not differ significantly from SRK/T and was tested at one center.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2025.08.049Across 271 short eyes, EVO and Holladay 1 had the lowest overall mean error, while Haigis, K6, Kane and PEARL-DGS led in particular axial-length ranges.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-026-07505-9In a nonrandomized study, EDOF and mix-and-match performed better at intermediate distance, while bifocal and mix-and-match performed better on corrected near testing.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0341136In a 141-eye series, Aspire and Aspire Toric produced good distance and intermediate results, but no control group allowed comparison with a standard monofocal IOL.
doi: 10.1007/s40123-026-01473-3