Performance of formulas included in the ESCRS intraocular lens power calculator.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001531

Janusz Skrzypecki, Douglas D Koch, Li Wang

{"title":"Performance of formulas included in the ESCRS intraocular lens power calculator.","authors":"Janusz Skrzypecki, Douglas D Koch, Li Wang","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: We wanted to compare the refractive prediction errors (PEs) of formulas included in the ESCRS IOL power calculator to aid in informed decisions on IOL power selection based on the output of this tool.Setting: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.Design: Retrospective case-series.Methods: We have included 748 eyes of 748 patients following implantation of one of 3 lenses, single-piece: the SN60WF (Alcon, USA), PCB00/ZCB00 (Tecnis, USA) and 3-piece: MA60MA (Alcon, USA). IOL constants recommended by the calculator were utilized for the study. We performed analysis for the whole dataset, short (<22mm) and long eyes (>25mm) as well as in subgroups based on the type of the implanted IOL. SD and RMSAE were selected as the primary endpoints.Results: Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs in the whole dataset (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett, EVO, and Hoffer-QST. In the subgroup of long eyes, the Kane formula had the lowest RMSAE (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett and EVO. We did not find any significant differences in primary endpoints for implantation of the 3 types of IOL. However, the median absolute error following implantation of the MA60MA was significantly higher than for all other formulas except for Pearl-DGS.Conclusions: We found significant differences in the performance of formulas included in the calculator. In the whole dataset, Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs among the analyzed formulas.","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11556801/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001531","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: We wanted to compare the refractive prediction errors (PEs) of formulas included in the ESCRS IOL power calculator to aid in informed decisions on IOL power selection based on the output of this tool.

Setting: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Design: Retrospective case-series.

Methods: We have included 748 eyes of 748 patients following implantation of one of 3 lenses, single-piece: the SN60WF (Alcon, USA), PCB00/ZCB00 (Tecnis, USA) and 3-piece: MA60MA (Alcon, USA). IOL constants recommended by the calculator were utilized for the study. We performed analysis for the whole dataset, short (<22mm) and long eyes (>25mm) as well as in subgroups based on the type of the implanted IOL. SD and RMSAE were selected as the primary endpoints.

Results: Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs in the whole dataset (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett, EVO, and Hoffer-QST. In the subgroup of long eyes, the Kane formula had the lowest RMSAE (p<0.05) when compared with Barrett and EVO. We did not find any significant differences in primary endpoints for implantation of the 3 types of IOL. However, the median absolute error following implantation of the MA60MA was significantly higher than for all other formulas except for Pearl-DGS.

Conclusions: We found significant differences in the performance of formulas included in the calculator. In the whole dataset, Cooke K6 had the lowest SD of PEs among the analyzed formulas.

查看原文本刊更多论文

ESCRS眼内透镜功率计算器所含公式的性能。

目的：我们希望比较ESCRS人工晶体植入功率计算器所含公式的屈光预测误差（PE），以帮助根据该工具的输出结果做出人工晶体植入功率选择的明智决策：地点：休斯顿贝勒医学院库伦眼科研究所：设计：回顾性病例系列：我们纳入了 748 名患者的 748 只眼睛，他们分别植入了 3 种镜片中的一种，单片：SN60WF（美国 Alcon 公司）、PCB00/ZCB00（美国 Tecnis 公司）和三片：MA60MA（美国 Alcon 公司）：MA60MA（美国 Alcon 公司）。本研究采用了计算器推荐的人工晶体常数。我们对整个数据集、短（25 毫米）数据集以及根据植入人工晶体类型划分的子集进行了分析。SD和RMSAE被选为主要终点：结果：在整个数据集中，Cooke K6的PE SD值最低（p结论：我们发现两种人工晶体的性能存在显著差异：我们发现计算器中包含的公式在性能上存在明显差异。在整个数据集中，Cooke K6 在所分析的公式中具有最低的 PE SD。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

$Journal of cataract and refractive surgery$

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

5.60

自引率

14.30%

发文量

259

审稿时长

8.5 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS). JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.