Comparison of the Accuracy Between the Z CALC2 Calculator and Barrett Toric Calculator in Toric IOL Calculation.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Lan Wang, Jiaqi Meng, Yanwen Fang, Wenwen He, Chen Zhao, Yi Lu, Xiangjia Zhu
{"title":"Comparison of the Accuracy Between the Z CALC2 Calculator and Barrett Toric Calculator in Toric IOL Calculation.","authors":"Lan Wang, Jiaqi Meng, Yanwen Fang, Wenwen He, Chen Zhao, Yi Lu, Xiangjia Zhu","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20240731-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator in toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-five eyes of 85 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation were included. The accuracy was compared between the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator under two calculation modes: using simulated keratometry (SimK) from the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) for posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) prediction and employing total corneal astigmatism (total corneal refractive power [TCRP] or measured PCA) obtained from the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). The centroid of prediction errors, percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 diopter (D), mean prediction error, and mean absolute prediction error were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the orientation and magnitude of anterior corneal astigmatism and axial length.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When using SimK, the two calculators with predicted PCA showed comparable accuracy. When employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA showed a lower centroid error (0.15 vs 0.38 D), a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D (47.1% vs 32.9%, <i>P</i> = .018), and a lower mean prediction error (0.57 vs 0.71 D, <i>P</i> = .033) compared to the Z CALC2 calculator with TCRP in the 4-mm zone. In subgroup analysis, when employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA exhibited superior accuracy, especially in the with-the-rule and anterior corneal astigmatism of 2.00 D or less subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When using SimK, the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator yield comparable accuracy. The Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA may be more recommended when employing total corneal astigmatism. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(10):e681-e691.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20240731-01","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator in toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculation.

Methods: Eighty-five eyes of 85 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation were included. The accuracy was compared between the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator under two calculation modes: using simulated keratometry (SimK) from the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) for posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) prediction and employing total corneal astigmatism (total corneal refractive power [TCRP] or measured PCA) obtained from the Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). The centroid of prediction errors, percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 diopter (D), mean prediction error, and mean absolute prediction error were calculated. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the orientation and magnitude of anterior corneal astigmatism and axial length.

Results: When using SimK, the two calculators with predicted PCA showed comparable accuracy. When employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA showed a lower centroid error (0.15 vs 0.38 D), a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D (47.1% vs 32.9%, P = .018), and a lower mean prediction error (0.57 vs 0.71 D, P = .033) compared to the Z CALC2 calculator with TCRP in the 4-mm zone. In subgroup analysis, when employing total corneal astigmatism, the Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA exhibited superior accuracy, especially in the with-the-rule and anterior corneal astigmatism of 2.00 D or less subgroups.

Conclusions: When using SimK, the Z CALC2 calculator and Barrett toric calculator yield comparable accuracy. The Barrett toric calculator with measured PCA may be more recommended when employing total corneal astigmatism. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e681-e691.].

Z CALC2 计算器与巴雷特散光计算器在散光人工晶体计算中的准确性比较。
目的:比较 Z CALC2 计算器和 Barrett 散光计算器在散光人工晶体(IOL)计算中的准确性:方法:研究对象包括 85 名顺利进行白内障手术并植入散光人工晶体的患者的 85 只眼睛。比较了Z CALC2计算器和Barrett散光计算器在两种计算模式下的准确性:使用IOLMaster 700(卡尔蔡司医疗有限公司)的模拟角膜测量(SimK)预测角膜后散光(PCA),以及使用Pentacam(Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH)获得的总角膜散光(总角膜屈光力[TCRP]或测量的PCA)。计算了预测误差的中心点、预测误差在±0.50屈光度(D)以内的眼睛百分比、平均预测误差和平均绝对预测误差。根据前角膜散光的方向和大小以及轴长进行了分组分析:结果:使用 SimK 时,两种预测 PCA 的计算器显示出相当的准确性。与使用 4 毫米区 TCRP 的 Z CALC2 计算器相比,在使用总角膜散光时,使用测量 PCA 的 Barrett 散光计算器显示出更低的中心误差(0.15 vs 0.38 D),预测误差在 ±0.50 D 以内的眼睛比例更高(47.1% vs 32.9%,P = .018),平均预测误差更低(0.57 vs 0.71 D,P = .033)。在分组分析中,当采用角膜总散光度数时,带有测量 PCA 的 Barrett 散光计算器显示出更高的准确性,尤其是在带规则和前角膜散光度数为 2.00 D 或更小的分组中:结论:使用 SimK 时,Z CALC2 计算器和巴雷特散光计算器的准确度相当。在使用全角膜散光时,更推荐使用带有测量PCA的Barrett散光计算器。[J Refract Surg. 2024;40(10):e681-e691]。
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
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
160
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Refractive Surgery, the official journal of the International Society of Refractive Surgery, a partner of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has been a monthly peer-reviewed forum for original research, review, and evaluation of refractive and lens-based surgical procedures for more than 30 years. Practical, clinically valuable articles provide readers with the most up-to-date information regarding advances in the field of refractive surgery. Begin to explore the Journal and all of its great benefits such as: • Columns including “Translational Science,” “Surgical Techniques,” and “Biomechanics” • Supplemental videos and materials available for many articles • Access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content • Articles posted online just 2 months after acceptance.
×
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