Purpose: This study compared the accuracy of five intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods (Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, EVO 2.0, and Kane) in post-LASIK myopic eyes. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 65 eyes that received phacoemulsification with IOL implantation after prior LASIK procedures for myopia correction. Five calculation methods (Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, EVO 2.0, and Kane) were applied to calculate anticipated refractive results. Prediction error (PE) and absolute prediction error (AE) were derived by comparing manifest refraction-derived spherical equivalents to formula-predicted values. Metrics included median PE (MedPE), median AE (MedAE), proportion of eyes achieving refractive outcomes within +0.5 D and +1.00 D, and statistical assessments evaluating axial length (AL)-related AE variations across formulas. Results: EVO 2.0 formula demonstrated significantly lower prediction errors compared to PE than Shammas-PL (P G 0.001) and Barrett True-K (P = 0.001), while showing comparable performance to Haigis-L (P = 0.052). Kane formula had higher PE than Barrett True-K (P G 0.001), Haigis-L (P G 0.001), Shammas-PL (P G 0.001) and EVO 2.0 (P G 0.001). Barrett True-K and Haigis-L formula achieved the lowest MedAE (median = 0.73), lower than Kane (median = 1.36, P G 0.001), but similar to EVO 2.0 (median = 0.76, P = 0.052) and Shammas-PL (median = 0.77, P = 0.118). Kane formula had a significantly fewer outcome within clinically acceptable ranges (+0.5D and +1.0D) relative to other tested formulas (P G 0.001). With increasing AL, AE of Barrett TrueK and Kane formula showed a significant increase (Barrett True-K: r = 0.3497, P = 0.0043; Kane: r = 0.3084, P = 0.0124). Conclusions: EVO 2.0 demonstrated robust stability across diverse axial lengths (ALs), achieving superior predictive accuracy in post-LASIK IOL calculations compared to the Kane formula, while matching the performance of Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, and Shammas-PL methods. Considering accuracy, strategic integration of Barrett True-K and EVO 2.0 computational outcomes could optimize postoperative refractive results.