Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative-diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Journal of cataract and refractive surgery Pub Date : 2024-10-16 DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001569

Woong-Joo Whang, Kyungmin Koh, Kenneth J Hoffer, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Enrico Lupardi, Leonardo Taroni, Hungwon Tchah, Giacomo Savini

{"title":"Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative-diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia.","authors":"Woong-Joo Whang, Kyungmin Koh, Kenneth J Hoffer, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Enrico Lupardi, Leonardo Taroni, Hungwon Tchah, Giacomo Savini","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs.Design: Retrospective case series.Setting: K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, ….Methods: Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization.Results: With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization.Conclusions: With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","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.0000000000001569","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: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs.

Design: Retrospective case series.

Setting: K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, ….

Methods: Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization.

Results: With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization.

Conclusions: With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.

查看原文本刊更多论文

针对高度近视植入负屈光度眼内透镜的眼内透镜功率公式比较。

目的：比较需要负屈光度人工晶体的近视眼的眼内晶体（IOL）功率计算公式的准确性：设计：回顾性病例系列：K...医院和Y...医院，...，....方法：调查了61只接受乳化手术并植入负屈光度人工晶体的眼睛。使用 Eyetemis 在线工具对 Barrett Universal II (BUII)、EVO 2.0、Haigis、Hoffer QST、Holladay 1 和 SRK/T 公式进行了人工晶体功率计算的真实性、精确性和准确性评估。分析使用了 1) ULIB IOL 常量和 2) 常量优化后的结果：结果：使用 ULIB 常数时，Haigis、Holladay 1 和 SRK/T 导致的远视平均预测误差 (PE) >1.00 屈光度 (D)，与零有显著差异（调整后的 p 结论）：在使用 ULIB 常量时，BUII、EVO 2.0 和 Hoffer QST 在负屈光度人工晶体的眼睛中比传统公式更准确。即使经过不断优化，这些眼睛的人工晶体功率计算结果仍然很差。

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.