A Multi Comparison of 8 Different Intraocular Lens Biometry Formulae, Including a Machine Learning Thin Lens Formula (MM) and an Inbuilt Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Ray Tracing Formula.

Q2 Medicine
Richard N McNeely, Katherine McGinnity, Stephen Stewart, Emmanuel Eric Pazo, Salissou Moutari, Jonathan E Moore
{"title":"A Multi Comparison of 8 Different Intraocular Lens Biometry Formulae, Including a Machine Learning Thin Lens Formula (MM) and an Inbuilt Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography Ray Tracing Formula.","authors":"Richard N McNeely, Katherine McGinnity, Stephen Stewart, Emmanuel Eric Pazo, Salissou Moutari, Jonathan E Moore","doi":"10.3390/vision8030049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae, including SRK/T, HofferQ, Holladay 1, Haigis, MM, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and AS-OCT ray tracing, was performed. One hundred eyes implanted with either the Rayone EMV RAO200E (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited, Worthing, UK) or the Artis Symbiose (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL were included. Biometry was obtained using IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the target were compared, with ±0.75D considered a key metric. The highest percentage within ±0.75D was found with MM (96%) followed by the Haigis (94%) for the enhanced monofocal IOL. SRK/T (94%) had the highest percentage within ±0.75D, followed by Holladay 1, MM, BUII, and ray tracing (all 90%) for the multifocal IOL. No statistically significant difference in MAE was found with both IOLs. EVO showed the lowest MAE for the enhanced monofocal and ray tracing for the multifocal IOL. EVO and ray tracing showed the lowest MedAE for the two respective IOLs. A similar performance with high accuracy across formulae was found. MM and ray tracing appear to have similar accuracy to the well-established formulae and displayed a high percentage of eyes within ±0.75D.</p>","PeriodicalId":36586,"journal":{"name":"Vision (Switzerland)","volume":"8 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417848/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vision (Switzerland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/vision8030049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae, including SRK/T, HofferQ, Holladay 1, Haigis, MM, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), and AS-OCT ray tracing, was performed. One hundred eyes implanted with either the Rayone EMV RAO200E (Rayner Intraocular Lenses Limited, Worthing, UK) or the Artis Symbiose (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL were included. Biometry was obtained using IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the target were compared, with ±0.75D considered a key metric. The highest percentage within ±0.75D was found with MM (96%) followed by the Haigis (94%) for the enhanced monofocal IOL. SRK/T (94%) had the highest percentage within ±0.75D, followed by Holladay 1, MM, BUII, and ray tracing (all 90%) for the multifocal IOL. No statistically significant difference in MAE was found with both IOLs. EVO showed the lowest MAE for the enhanced monofocal and ray tracing for the multifocal IOL. EVO and ray tracing showed the lowest MedAE for the two respective IOLs. A similar performance with high accuracy across formulae was found. MM and ray tracing appear to have similar accuracy to the well-established formulae and displayed a high percentage of eyes within ±0.75D.

8 种不同眼内透镜生物测量公式的多重比较,包括机器学习薄透镜公式 (MM) 和内置前段光学相干断层扫描光线追踪公式。
对眼内透镜(IOL)功率计算公式的准确性进行了比较,包括 SRK/T、HofferQ、Holladay 1、Haigis、MM、Barrett Universal II (BUII)、Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 和 AS-OCT 射线追踪。其中包括 100 只植入了 Rayone EMV RAO200E(雷纳眼内镜片有限公司,英国沃辛)或 Artis Symbiose(Cristalens Industrie,法国兰尼翁)人工晶体的眼睛。生物测量采用 IOLMaster 700(卡尔蔡司医疗技术公司,德国耶拿,德国)和 MS-39 AS-OCT (CSO,意大利佛罗伦萨,意大利)。比较了绝对误差的平均值(MAE)和中位数(MedAE),以及目标值在±0.25D、±0.50D、±0.75D和±1.00D以内的眼的百分比,其中±0.75D被认为是关键指标。±0.75D以内比例最高的是MM(96%),其次是增强型单焦点人工晶体的Haigis(94%)。多焦 IOL 中,SRK/T(94%)在 ±0.75D 以内的比例最高,其次是霍拉代 1、MM、BUII 和光线跟踪(均为 90%)。两种人工晶体的 MAE 在统计学上没有明显差异。EVO 显示增强型单焦人工晶体的 MAE 最低,光线追踪显示多焦人工晶体的 MAE 最低。EVO 和光线追踪显示两种人工晶体的 MedAE 最低。不同的公式具有相似的高精度性能。MM和光线追踪的精确度似乎与成熟的公式相似,显示出±0.75D以内的眼睛比例很高。
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
Vision (Switzerland)
Vision (Switzerland) Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信