Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in patients with endothelial dystrophy without edema.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Asaf Shemer, Maayan Fradkin, Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov, Olga Reitblat, Francis Simaan, Ruti Sella, Eran Pras, Adi Einan-Lifshitz
{"title":"Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in patients with endothelial dystrophy without edema.","authors":"Asaf Shemer, Maayan Fradkin, Biana Dubinsky-Pertzov, Olga Reitblat, Francis Simaan, Ruti Sella, Eran Pras, Adi Einan-Lifshitz","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the accuracy of several intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for patients with endothelial dystrophy (ED) without edema treated with cataract surgery alone.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>One academic, tertiary referral center.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Comparative retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assessed the predicted refractive results of ED patients who underwent cataract surgery and compared them to a matched control group. The accuracy of five different IOL formulas Haigis, Holladay 1, Barrett Universal II, SRK/T and Kane was evaluated and compared between the groups. The standard deviations of the prediction error of all formulas were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 221 eyes. Fifty (23%) eyes of patients with ED and 171 (77%) control eyes. There was no significant difference between the two groups in clinical and demographical characteristics (P>0.05). The postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.37 D in the ED group and -0.30 D in the control group (P=0.8). Overall, both groups had a comparable standard deviation of the prediction error (PE) and absolute PE (APE) in all formulas (p>0.05). In the ED group, APE was 0.34 D for Haigis, 0.32 D for Holladay1, 0.32 D for Barrett Universal II, 0.38 D for SRK/T and 0.32 D for Kane formulas. No statistically significant difference between formulas was found.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The prediction accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients with ED was found comparable both between formulas and in comparison with healthy controls. This suggests that in patients with guttate without edema the IOL power calculations are as effective and accurate as in healthy eyes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","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.0000000000001578","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 evaluate the accuracy of several intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for patients with endothelial dystrophy (ED) without edema treated with cataract surgery alone.

Setting: One academic, tertiary referral center.

Design: Comparative retrospective cohort study.

Methods: We assessed the predicted refractive results of ED patients who underwent cataract surgery and compared them to a matched control group. The accuracy of five different IOL formulas Haigis, Holladay 1, Barrett Universal II, SRK/T and Kane was evaluated and compared between the groups. The standard deviations of the prediction error of all formulas were compared.

Results: The study included 221 eyes. Fifty (23%) eyes of patients with ED and 171 (77%) control eyes. There was no significant difference between the two groups in clinical and demographical characteristics (P>0.05). The postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.37 D in the ED group and -0.30 D in the control group (P=0.8). Overall, both groups had a comparable standard deviation of the prediction error (PE) and absolute PE (APE) in all formulas (p>0.05). In the ED group, APE was 0.34 D for Haigis, 0.32 D for Holladay1, 0.32 D for Barrett Universal II, 0.38 D for SRK/T and 0.32 D for Kane formulas. No statistically significant difference between formulas was found.

Conclusion: The prediction accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients with ED was found comparable both between formulas and in comparison with healthy controls. This suggests that in patients with guttate without edema the IOL power calculations are as effective and accurate as in healthy eyes.

无水肿的内皮营养不良症患者眼内晶状体功率计算的准确性。
目的:评估几种眼内人工晶体(IOL)计算公式对单纯白内障手术治疗的无水肿内皮营养不良(ED)患者的准确性:一个学术性三级转诊中心:设计:比较性回顾性队列研究:我们对接受白内障手术的 ED 患者的屈光预测结果进行了评估,并与匹配的对照组进行了比较。我们评估了五种不同的人工晶体公式海吉斯、霍拉迪1、巴雷特通用II、SRK/T和凯恩的准确性,并在各组之间进行了比较。比较了所有公式预测误差的标准偏差:研究包括 221 只眼睛。其中 50 只(23%)为 ED 患者,171 只(77%)为对照组。两组患者的临床和人口统计学特征无明显差异(P>0.05)。ED 组术后球面等效度数为-0.37 D,对照组为-0.30 D(P=0.8)。总体而言,两组所有公式的预测误差(PE)和绝对预测误差(APE)的标准偏差相当(P>0.05)。在 ED 组中,Haigis 的 APE 为 0.34 D,Holladay1 为 0.32 D,Barrett Universal II 为 0.32 D,SRK/T 为 0.38 D,Kane 公式为 0.32 D。不同公式之间没有统计学意义上的差异:结论:ED 患者 IOL 功率计算的预测准确度在不同公式之间以及与健康对照组相比都具有可比性。这表明,对于无水肿的有晶体眼患者,IOL 功率计算与健康眼一样有效和准确。
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
5.60
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.
×
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