\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Accuracy of Barrett Versus Third Generation Intraocular Lens Formula Across all Axial Lengths in Indian Eyes},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020 2020-01-15 (revised: 43 Year 2020 15 January 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020 2020-01-15}
\title{Accuracy of Barrett Versus Third Generation Intraocular Lens Formula Across all Axial Lengths in Indian Eyes}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Dr. Raline Solomon  Amalakaran}

             \author[2]{  Dr.Tamilarasi}

             \author[3]{Dr.  Gitansha}

             \author[4]{Dr. D  Ramamurthy}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 6 December 2019 Accepted: 5 January 2020 Published: 15 January 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of Barrett Versus 3rd generation formulae for different intraocular lens (IOL) powers for Indian eyes with different axial lengths. Setting: The Eye Foundation Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India- a tertiary eye care Center Design: Retrospective, Non-Randomized consecutive case series. Methods: This study reviewed 981 eyes from 825 patients who had uneventful cataract surgery and IOL implantation. Eyes were separated into subgroups based on axial length as follows: short (<22.0 mm), medium (22.0 to 23.99 mm) and long (>24.0 mm).

\end{abstract}


\keywords{}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he prediction of refractive outcomes after cataract surgery has steadily improved, with more recent intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas generally outperforming those of prior generations.  {\ref (1,}2) Yet there is still considerable debate about which formula provides the most accurate refractive prediction. Because no single formula has been shown to be highly accurate across a range of eye characteristics, some authors have suggested that cataract surgeons should use different formulas for eyes of varied ocular dimensions. \hyperref[b1]{(3,}\hyperref[b2]{4)} Popular third-generation formulas (Hoffer Q, SRK-T, and Holladay 1) calculate effective lens position(ELP) using anterior chamber depth (ACD), axial length(AL) and keratometry (K). The Barrett Universal 2 formula uses a theoretical model eye in which anterior chamber depth (ACD) is related to axial length (AL) and keratometry. A relationship between the A-constant and a "lens factor" is also used to determine ACD. \hyperref[b3]{(5)} The important difference between the Barrett formula and other formulas is that the location of the principle plane of refraction of the IOL is retained as a relevant variable in the formula.\par
The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the accuracy of Barrett Universal II formula for all axial lengths versus the Third generation formulae : SRK-T for long eyes (AXL>24mm), Holladay 1 for medium eyes (AXL=22-23.99 mm) and Hoffer Q for short eyes (AXL ? 21.99 mm) in predicting refractive outcome for standard cataract surgery. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Patients and Methods}]{Patients and Methods}\par
Study design: Retrospective, non-randomised case series Setting: The Eye Foundation Hospital and postgraduate institute, Coimbatore, India Duration of data collection: January 2017 and December 2018  {\ref (18 months)} The study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutions ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants included in the study. Patients with age related cataract undergoing uneventful cataract surgery were included in the study. Intra-operative complications, presence of any corneal pathology, glaucoma, retinal pathology, postoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) worse than 20/40, patients with preoperative corneal astigmatism of > 0.75D,eyes requiring additional surgical procedures at the time of cataract surgery (including peripheral corneal relaxing incisions), previous intraocular surgery (including Ocular biometry was performed in all eyes using the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) technology.\par
Patients were grouped into two groups , Group 1-Patients who had their IOL power calculated using Barrett universal Formula (Across all axial length) and Group 2-Patients who had their IOL power calculated using 3rd Generation IOL formulae(SRK-T for AXL?24mm, what about ,Holladay 1 for AXL=22-23.99 mm and Hoffer Q for AXL ? 21.99 mm. IOL power with the first myopic target refraction was selected for implantation All surgeries were performed by a single experienced surgeon using a 2.4 mm clear corneal incision and a standard Phacoemulsification technique. All patients had implantation of an AcryS of SN60WF intraocular lens (Alcon, Ft Worth, TX, USA). Preoperative examinations, operative details, postoperative findings, and refractive data were collected. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Statistical Methods}]{Statistical Methods}\par
Refractive prediction error was considered as primary outcome variable. Groups (Group 1 vs. group 2) was considered as primary explanatory variable. All Quantitative variables were checked for normal distribution within each category of explanatory variable by using visual inspection of histograms and normality Q-Q plots. Shapiro-wilk test was also conducted to assess normal distribution. Shapiro wilk test p value of >0.05 was considered as normal distribution. For normally distributed Quantitative parameters the mean values were compared between study groups using Independent sample t-test (2 groups). P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.(  {\ref 6}) 
\section[{a) Statistical Analysis}]{a) Statistical Analysis}\par
The refractive prediction error was calculated as the difference between the postoperative refractive outcome expressed as spherical equivalent and the refraction predicted by each formula. A negative value indicates a myopic prediction error that shows a more myopic result than the predicted refraction. The mean numerical refractive prediction error for each formula, the mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error for each formula were calculated. The percentages of eyes within <±0.50 D, 0.50D-0.75D,>±0.75 D, of the predicted refraction were calculated and analyzed.\par
IV. 
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
The study composed of 981 eyes of 825 patients. The demographics of the patients are listed in Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1}. However there was a good difference between the percentage prediction between the 2 groups, with the prediction error of Barret IOL formulae to be far superior and much closer to emmetropia than the other 3 rd generation IOL formulae as shown in Tables \hyperref[tab_3]{3 and 4}.. There was no documented myopic or hyperopic surprise in any of the IOL formulae. V. 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
Corrected distance visual acuity has long been the principal outcome measure following cataract surgery; however, surgeons are now being judged more and more on refractive outcomes and the ability to achieve the desired refractive target and expected degree of spectacle independence. \hyperref[b5]{(7,}\hyperref[b6]{8)} Published results suggest that surgeons are, by and large, meeting expectations. \hyperref[b7]{(9,}\hyperref[b8]{10)} Refractive outcomes remain variable based upon differences in surgeon technique and experience, preoperative diagnostic technology and the population cohort. \hyperref[b9]{(11)}\hyperref[b10]{(12)}\hyperref[b11]{(13)}\hyperref[b12]{(14)} Proposed benchmark outcomes also vary. Based on a large subset of patients undergoing surgery across the National Health Service, Gale and co-authors have previously suggested that 55\% of patients should achieve postoperative spherical equivalent of ± 0.5D of the intended target and 85\% of patients within ± 1.0D.(  {\ref 15}) Subsequent papers however suggest outcomes in excess of these figures may be feasible. Simon et al achieved 67\% of cases within ± 0.5D and 94\% of cases within ± 1.0D in their own case series located at an academic teaching institution.(  {\ref 16}) Considering the combination of modern optical biometry, informed formula choice and IOL constant optimization, Sheard had proposed that surgeons should be able to achieve 60\% and 90\% within ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D respectively. \hyperref[b15]{(17)} To determine the effectiveness of the IOL formula in a relatively standard population, we calculated the theoretical performance of Barrett Universal II in comparison with existing optimized formulas (Holladay I, SRK/T and Hoffer Q).\par
In our study, the prediction error of <± 0.50D using Barrett universal formula across all axial lengths is given in Table \hyperref[tab_2]{3}. A Refraction prediction error of 96\%, 92.3\%, 90.6\% in patients with Long, normal and short axial lengths was seen. In those whom 3rd generation formulae was used the prediction error of <± 0.50 D was seen in 93.1\%, 82.5\%, 75\% in patients with Long, normal and short axial lengths (Table \hyperref[tab_3]{4}). However there was no statistical significance in prediction error of patients in extreme of Axial lengths Long eyes p= 0.4360, Short eyes p=0.0525. The percentage of prediction error of < ± 0.50D in normal eyes between the Barrett and 3rd Generation formulae was statistically significant (p<0.0001). This difference in statistical significance could also be due large variation in the sample size across the three groups.\par
The mean absolute error derived from using Barrett Universal II were lower than those of the 3rd Generation formulae, across all axial lengths (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2}). The real challenge in giving the best post-operative refractive outcomes lie in selecting the IOL formulae that would give the lowest refractive prediction error ,especially in eyes with extreme of axial lengths (AXL >24.00mm and <22.00 mm). In our study Barrett Universal II had prediction error of 0.07 ±0.31, 0.07± 0.49 versus 0.04±0.35,-0.12±0.13 using SRK=T, Hoffer-Q in long and short eyes respectively, the differences were not statistically significant and the results are almost comparable to those published by Zhou D et al and Gökce SE et al. \hyperref[b16]{(18,}\hyperref[b17]{19)} In terms of overall accuracy, the Barrett Universal II formula provided the equivalent or lowest variation within the data and thereby smallest percentage of refractive surprises compared to other formulas for all cohorts. Our results, representative of a standard non-toric Indian population show that excellent results can be achieved combining optical biometry with consistent technique and latest IOL power calculation formulas. The Barrett Universal II formula is independently available and require minimal additional manipulation to achieve excellent results across all axial lengths is a further benefit. Another advantage is that it does not require calculation of surgically induced astigmatism. The limitation of our study remains the relatively small numbers in the short and long axial length groups. Study inclusion was limited to the SN60WF IOL as this was one of most commonly used IOL in this part of the world. Although it would be reasonable to expect that the formulas would produce similar outcomes for additional lenses, further investigation may be useful to confirm this.\par
In conclusion, we found that excellent results can be obtained with a variety of IOL power calculation formulas for eyes with different axial lengths, especially extreme of axial lengths. The Barrett Universal II formula may provide additional benefits for patients by reducing possible refractive surprises and a very effective tool to reaching the goal of emmetropia which is a desirable goal for every cataract surgeon in the present day world. 
\section[{a) What was known}]{a) What was known}\par
Because there is no single highly accurate formula across a range of eye characteristics, many cataract surgeons should consider and use several formulas in eyes with various ocular dimensions. 
\section[{b) What this paper adds}]{b) What this paper adds}\par
The Barrett Universal II formula is the most accurate predictor of postoperative refraction compared with the third generation across all axial lengths. Synopsis: The Barrett formula appeared to have the least bias as measured by prediction error across all axial lengths, with better accuracy in shorter axial lengths.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.0866504854368932\textwidth}P{0.40436893203883495\textwidth}P{0.25032362459546925\textwidth}P{0.10865695792880259\textwidth}}
PARAMETER\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD) AXL = 22.00-23.99 mm}\tabcellsep P VALUE\\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=404)\tabcellsep GROUP 2(N=337)\tabcellsep \\
K 1(D)\tabcellsep 44.23 ± 0.87\tabcellsep 44.74 ± 0.23\tabcellsep 0.2842\\
K 2(D)\tabcellsep 44.84 ± 0.80\tabcellsep 44.71 ± 0.46\tabcellsep 0.2574\\
AXL\tabcellsep 22.80 ± 0.52\tabcellsep 22.54 ± 0.13\tabcellsep 0.1619\\
ACD\tabcellsep 3.02 ± 0.23\tabcellsep 3.23 ± 0.12\tabcellsep 0.1534\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD)}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{AXL = ? 24 mm}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=76)\tabcellsep GROUP 2(N=73)\tabcellsep \\
K 1(D)\tabcellsep 43.2 ± 1.68\tabcellsep 43.05 ± 1.32\tabcellsep 0.5465\\
K 2(D)\tabcellsep 43.55 ± 1.56\tabcellsep 43.35 ± 1.33\tabcellsep 0.4020\\
AXL\tabcellsep 24.51± 0.21\tabcellsep 24.81 ± 0.73\tabcellsep 0.2805\\
ACD\tabcellsep 3.55 ± 0.21\tabcellsep 3.42 ± 0.10\tabcellsep 0.3708\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD)}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{AXL =? 21.99 mm}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=43)\tabcellsep GROUP 2 (N=48)\tabcellsep \\
K 1(D)\tabcellsep 45.99 ± 1.58\tabcellsep 46.15 ± 1.05\tabcellsep 0.5672\\
K 2(D)\tabcellsep 46.53 ± 1.44\tabcellsep 46.47 ± 1.12\tabcellsep 0.8240\\
AXL\tabcellsep 21.55 ± 0.09\tabcellsep 21.35 ± 0.05\tabcellsep 0.1334\\
ACD\tabcellsep 2.93 ± 0.24\tabcellsep 2.88 ± 0.14\tabcellsep 0.2223\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.07909896602658789\textwidth}P{0.40428360413589365\textwidth}P{0.26115214180206797\textwidth}P{0.10546528803545052\textwidth}}
PARAMETER\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD) AXL = 22.00-23.99 mm}\tabcellsep P VALUE\\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=404)\tabcellsep GROUP 2(N=337)\tabcellsep \\
UCVA\tabcellsep 0.35 ± 0.15\tabcellsep 0.33 ± 0.14\tabcellsep 0.0629\\
MRSE\tabcellsep -0.19 ± 0.32\tabcellsep -0.14 ± 0.41\tabcellsep 0.0628\\
RPE\tabcellsep -0.04 ± 0.20\tabcellsep -0.01 ± 0.43\tabcellsep 0.2118\\
MAE\tabcellsep 0.20 ± 0.04\tabcellsep 0.24 ± 0.10\tabcellsep 0.0660\\
CDVA\tabcellsep 0.00 ± 0.00\tabcellsep 0.00 ± 0.00\tabcellsep 0.00\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD)}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{AXL = ? 24 mm}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=76)\tabcellsep GROUP 2(N=73)\tabcellsep \\
UCVA\tabcellsep 0.13 ± 0.14\tabcellsep 0.11 ± 0.1\tabcellsep 0.3190\\
MRSE\tabcellsep -0.11 ± 0.3\tabcellsep -0.12 ± 0.3\tabcellsep 0.8391\\
RPE\tabcellsep 0.07 ± 0.31\tabcellsep 0.04 ± 0.35\tabcellsep 0.5801\\
MAE\tabcellsep 0.24 ± 0.23\tabcellsep 0.26 ± 0.24\tabcellsep 0.6042\\
CDVA\tabcellsep 0.02 ± 0.08\tabcellsep 0.01 ± 0.04\tabcellsep 0.3392\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{STUDY GROUP (Mean± SD)}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{AXL =? 21.99 mm}\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep GROUP 1(N=43)\tabcellsep GROUP 2 (N=48)\tabcellsep \\
UCVA\tabcellsep 0.13 ± 0.11\tabcellsep 0.16 ± 0.13\tabcellsep 0.2407\\
MRSE\tabcellsep -0.1 ± 0.44\tabcellsep -0.23 ± 0.62\tabcellsep \\
RPE\tabcellsep 0.07 ± 0.49\tabcellsep 0.12 ± 0.53\tabcellsep 0.6427\\
MAE\tabcellsep 0.33 ± 0.37\tabcellsep 0.39 ± 0.38\tabcellsep 0.4485\\
CDVA\tabcellsep 0.00 ± 0.08\tabcellsep 0.00 ± 0.02\tabcellsep 1\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1540625\textwidth}P{0.2125\textwidth}P{0.24437499999999998\textwidth}P{0.23906249999999998\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Long Eyes (\%)\tabcellsep Normal Eyes (\%)\tabcellsep Short Eyes (\%)\\
\tabcellsep (AXL ?24.00mm)\tabcellsep (AXL=22-23.99 mm)\tabcellsep (AXL ? 21.99 mm)\\
\tabcellsep N=76\tabcellsep N=404\tabcellsep N=43\\
<± 0.50 D\tabcellsep 96\tabcellsep 92.3\tabcellsep 90.6\\
0.50 -0.75 D\tabcellsep 1.3\tabcellsep 4.7\tabcellsep 4.6\\
> 0.75 D\tabcellsep 2.6\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4.6\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1259259259259259\textwidth}P{0.22486772486772486\textwidth}P{0.2653439153439153\textwidth}P{0.23386243386243386\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Long Eyes Srk-T (\%) (Axl ? 24.00 Mm) N=73\tabcellsep Normal Eyes Holladay (\%) (Axl 22-23.99 Mm) N=337\tabcellsep Short Eyes Hoffer Q(\%) (Axl ? 21.9mm) N=48\\
± 0.50 D\tabcellsep 93.1\tabcellsep 82.5\tabcellsep 75\\
0.50 -0.75 D\tabcellsep 6.8\tabcellsep 7.9\tabcellsep 8.3\\
> 0.75 D\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 6.2\tabcellsep 16.6\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Ladas et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘A 3-D "super surface" combining modern intraocular lens formulas to generate a "super formula" and maximize accuracy’.  		 			J G Ladas 		,  		 			A A Siddiqui 		,  		 			U Devgan 		,  		 			A S Jun 		.  	 	 		\textit{JAMA Ophthalmol}  		2015. 133 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Reitblat et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Accuracy of predicted refraction with multifocal intraocular lenses using two biometry measurement devices and multiple intraocular lens power calculation formulas’.  		 			O Reitblat 		,  		 			E I Assia 		,  		 			G Kleinmann 		,  		 			A Levy 		,  		 			G D Barrett 		,  		 			A Abulafia 		.  	 	 		\textit{Clin Experiment Ophthalmol}  		2015. 43  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zhou et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Accuracy of the refractive prediction determined by intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high myopia’.  		 			D Zhou 		,  		 			Z Sun 		,  		 			G Deng 		.  	 	 		\textit{Indian J Ophthalmol}  		2019. 67 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Carifi et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Accuracy of the refractive prediction determined by multiple currently available intraocular lens power calculation formulas in small eyes’.  		 			G Carifi 		,  		 			F Aiello 		,  		 			V Zygoura 		,  		 			N Kopsachilis 		,  		 			V Maurino 		.  	 	 		\textit{Am J Ophthalmol}  		2015. 159  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Simon et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Achieving target refraction after cataract surgery’.  		 			S S Simon 		,  		 			Y E Chee 		,  		 			R I Haddadin 		,  		 			P B Veldman 		,  		 			S Borboli-Gerogiannis 		,  		 			S C Brauner 		,  		 			K K Chang 		,  		 			S H Chen 		,  		 			M F Gardiner 		,  		 			S H Greenstein 		,  		 			C E Kloek 		,  		 			T C Chen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Ophthalmology}  		2014. 121  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[An improved universal theoretical formula for intraocular lens power prediction. Barrett GD J Cataract Refract Surg (1993)]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘An improved universal theoretical formula for intraocular lens power prediction. Barrett GD’.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		1993 Nov. 19  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Colin et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Assessment of patient satisfaction with outcomes of and ophthalmic care for cataract surgery’.  		 			J Colin 		,  		 			S El Kebir 		,  		 			E Eydoux 		,  		 			T Hoang-Xuan 		,  		 			P Rozot 		,  		 			M Weiser 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		2010. 36  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gale et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery’.  		 			R P Gale 		,  		 			M Saldana 		,  		 			R L Johnston 		,  		 			B Zuberbuhler 		,  		 			M Mckibbin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Eye}  		2009. 23  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lee et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation’.  		 			A C Lee 		,  		 			M A Qazi 		,  		 			J S Pepose 		.  	 	 		\textit{Curr Opin Ophthalmol}  		2008. 19  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Olsen ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review’.  		 			T Olsen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Acta Ophthalmol Scand}  		2007. 85  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lam ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Comparing optical low coherence reflectometry and immersion ultrasound in refractive outcome after cataract surgery’.  		 			S Lam 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		2013. 39  (2)  p. 2978.  	 
\bibitem[Aristodemou et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry’.  		 			P Aristodemou 		,  		 			Knox Cartwright 		,  		 			N E Sparrow 		,  		 			J M Johnston 		,  		 			RL 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		2011. 37 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ibm Corp ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0},  		 			Ibm Corp 		.  		2013. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.  	 
\bibitem[Haigis ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Intraocular lens calculation in extreme myopia’.  		 			W Haigis 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		2009. 35  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gökce et al. (2017)]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		\textit{Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas},  		 			S E Gökce 		,  		 			J H Zeiter 		,  		 			M P Weikert 		,  		 			D D Koch 		,  		 			W Hill 		,  		 			L Wang 		.  		2017 Jul 1. 43 p. .  	 	 (Journal of Cataract \& Refractive Surgery) 
\bibitem[Kane et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas’.  		 			J X Kane 		,  		 			A Van Heerden 		,  		 			A Atik 		,  		 			C Petsoglou 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		2016. 42 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Behndig et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register’.  		 			A Behndig 		,  		 			P Montan 		,  		 			U Stenevi 		,  		 			M Kugelberg 		,  		 			M Lundström 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cataract Refract Surg}  		1992-2009. 2011. 37  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sheard ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Optimising biometry for best outcomes in cataract surgery’.  		 			R Sheard 		.  	 	 		\textit{Eye}  		2014. 28  (2)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
