Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Haocheng Xian, Bingzhen Li, Ziyao Xia, Chun Zhang, Xuemin Li
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of several toric intraocular lens calculators for predicting postoperative refractive astigmatism in cataract surgery: a real-world study.","authors":"Haocheng Xian, Bingzhen Li, Ziyao Xia, Chun Zhang, Xuemin Li","doi":"10.1186/s12886-025-03856-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the predictive accuracy of six widely used toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators in eyes undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study reviewed 53 eyes of 53 patients that underwent cataract extraction with toric IOL implantation using Zeiss 709 M. Six toric IOL calculators were evaluated: Barrett toric calculator (with predicted PCA, measured PCA, and TK), Kane formula (predicted PCA), and EVO 2.0 formula (predicted and measured PCA). Postoperative refractive astigmatism prediction errors were comprehensively calculated and analyzed using vector analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean absolute prediction error (APE) ranged from 0.56 ± 0.37 D (Barrett TK) to 0.63 ± 0.46 D (Barrett predicted PCA, PPCA). The proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 1.0 D were highest for Barrett TK and Kane predicted PCA (90.6%). The highest proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 0.25 D and ≤ 0.50 D were observed with Barrett measured PCA (18.9% and 56.6%, respectively), while the lowest with Barrett PPCA (9.4% and 50.9%, respectively). The study found no statistically significant differences in mean absolute prediction error (APE) among the six calculators (χ² = 6.88, P = 0.23) and the centroid of PE (P = 0.93). A difference in mean APE was observed between the Barrett predicted PCA and Barrett TK calculators (P = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study confirms the importance of considering posterior corneal astigmatism remains essential to achieving precise refractive outcomes but also underscores the need for ongoing refinement and evaluation to optimize surgical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9058,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ophthalmology","volume":"25 1","pages":"35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752845/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-03856-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the predictive accuracy of six widely used toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators in eyes undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation.

Methods: This retrospective study reviewed 53 eyes of 53 patients that underwent cataract extraction with toric IOL implantation using Zeiss 709 M. Six toric IOL calculators were evaluated: Barrett toric calculator (with predicted PCA, measured PCA, and TK), Kane formula (predicted PCA), and EVO 2.0 formula (predicted and measured PCA). Postoperative refractive astigmatism prediction errors were comprehensively calculated and analyzed using vector analysis.

Results: The mean absolute prediction error (APE) ranged from 0.56 ± 0.37 D (Barrett TK) to 0.63 ± 0.46 D (Barrett predicted PCA, PPCA). The proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 1.0 D were highest for Barrett TK and Kane predicted PCA (90.6%). The highest proportions of eyes achieving APE ≤ 0.25 D and ≤ 0.50 D were observed with Barrett measured PCA (18.9% and 56.6%, respectively), while the lowest with Barrett PPCA (9.4% and 50.9%, respectively). The study found no statistically significant differences in mean absolute prediction error (APE) among the six calculators (χ² = 6.88, P = 0.23) and the centroid of PE (P = 0.93). A difference in mean APE was observed between the Barrett predicted PCA and Barrett TK calculators (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: The study confirms the importance of considering posterior corneal astigmatism remains essential to achieving precise refractive outcomes but also underscores the need for ongoing refinement and evaluation to optimize surgical outcomes.

几种环形人工晶状体计算器预测白内障手术后屈光散光的比较评价:一项真实世界的研究。
背景:本研究旨在全面评估六种广泛使用的人工晶状体(IOL)计算器在白内障手术人工晶状体植入术中的预测准确性。方法:回顾性分析53例53眼人工晶状体植入术患者,使用蔡司709 m进行白内障摘出并人工晶状体植入术,评价6种人工晶状体计算器:Barrett人工晶状体计算器(预测主成分、测量主成分和TK)、Kane公式(预测主成分)和EVO 2.0公式(预测和测量主成分)。采用矢量分析方法对术后屈光散光预测误差进行综合计算和分析。结果:平均绝对预测误差(APE)范围为0.56±0.37 D (Barrett TK) ~ 0.63±0.46 D (Barrett预测PCA、PPCA)。Barrett TK和Kane预测PCA中APE≤1.0 D的眼睛比例最高(90.6%)。巴雷特测量PCA达到APE≤0.25 D和≤0.50 D的比例最高(分别为18.9%和56.6%),巴雷特PPCA最低(分别为9.4%和50.9%)。研究发现,6种计算器的平均绝对预测误差(APE) (χ²= 6.88,P = 0.23)和PE质心(P = 0.93)差异无统计学意义。Barrett预测PCA与Barrett TK计算器的平均APE差异有统计学意义(P = 0.02)。结论:该研究证实了考虑角膜后散光对于获得精确屈光结果的重要性,但也强调了持续改进和评估以优化手术结果的必要性。
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
BMC Ophthalmology
BMC Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
441
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Ophthalmology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of eye disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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