Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta-analysis and systematic review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Olga Reitblat, Ruti Sella, Rita Zlatkin, Irit Bahar, Tsahi T Lerman
{"title":"Intraocular lens power calculation accuracy in patients with keratoconus: Network meta-analysis and systematic review.","authors":"Olga Reitblat, Ruti Sella, Rita Zlatkin, Irit Bahar, Tsahi T Lerman","doi":"10.1111/ceo.14470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) poses significant challenges. While various formulas, including KCN-specific ones, have been investigated, the optimal calculation method remains inconclusive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023483119). PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with KCN. The percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the mean PE and the mean absolute error (MAE) were compared using a random effect model in Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine retrospective clinical studies were included, totalling 623 eyes and 25 calculation methods. The Barrett True-K formula for KCN with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) achieved the highest ranking for the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, mean PE, and MAE, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 95%, 95%, 97% and 95%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that for the predictability rates within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the best ranking formulas were: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (85%) and BTK MPC (78%), respectively, in mild KCN; BTK with predicted posterior cornea (PPC) (85%) and MPC (88%), respectively, in moderate KCN; and Kane KCN for both metrics in severe KCN (84% and 95%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The BTK MPC formula ranked highest across various metrics, suggesting its superior accuracy for IOL calculations in KCN. The optimal formulas may differ based on KCN severity, with current evidence suggesting potential advantage of Kane KCN for severe cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":55253,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14470","RegionNum":2,"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

Background: Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) poses significant challenges. While various formulas, including KCN-specific ones, have been investigated, the optimal calculation method remains inconclusive.

Methods: The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023483119). PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with KCN. The percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the mean PE and the mean absolute error (MAE) were compared using a random effect model in Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Results: Nine retrospective clinical studies were included, totalling 623 eyes and 25 calculation methods. The Barrett True-K formula for KCN with measured posterior cornea (BTK MPC) achieved the highest ranking for the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, mean PE, and MAE, with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) of 95%, 95%, 97% and 95%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that for the predictability rates within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D, the best ranking formulas were: Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (85%) and BTK MPC (78%), respectively, in mild KCN; BTK with predicted posterior cornea (PPC) (85%) and MPC (88%), respectively, in moderate KCN; and Kane KCN for both metrics in severe KCN (84% and 95%, respectively).

Conclusion: The BTK MPC formula ranked highest across various metrics, suggesting its superior accuracy for IOL calculations in KCN. The optimal formulas may differ based on KCN severity, with current evidence suggesting potential advantage of Kane KCN for severe cases.

圆锥角膜患者人工晶状体度数计算的准确性:网络荟萃分析和系统评价。
背景:圆锥角膜(KCN)患者人工晶状体(IOL)的准确计算面临着重大挑战。虽然已经研究了各种公式,包括特定于kcn的公式,但最佳计算方法仍然没有定论。方法:该研究在PROSPERO (CRD42023483119)进行预注册。系统检索PubMed、Embase和CENTRAL电子数据库,比较眼内人工晶状体度数计算公式与KCN的比较研究。采用贝叶斯网络meta分析中的随机效应模型比较预测误差(PE)在±0.50 D和±1.00 D范围内的眼睛百分比、平均PE和平均绝对误差(MAE)。结果:纳入9项回顾性临床研究,共623只眼,25种计算方法。测量后角膜的KCN的Barrett True-K公式(BTK MPC)在±0.50 D和±1.00 D范围内的PE百分比、平均PE和MAE排名最高,其累积排名(SUCRA)分别为95%、95%、97%和95%。亚组分析显示,对于±0.50 D和±1.00 D范围内的预测率,轻度KCN的最佳排序公式分别为:Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO)(85%)和BTK MPC (78%);在中度KCN中,BTK与预测的后角膜(PPC)(85%)和MPC(88%)分别;在严重KCN中,这两个指标分别为84%和95%。结论:BTK MPC公式在各种指标中排名最高,表明其在KCN中计算人工晶状体的准确性较高。根据KCN的严重程度,最佳配方可能有所不同,目前的证据表明凯恩KCN对严重病例有潜在的优势。
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
7.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology is the official journal of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original research and reviews dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research which are international in scope and application. CEO recognises the importance of collaborative research and welcomes papers that have a direct influence on ophthalmic practice but are not unique to ophthalmology.
×
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