Comparison of the Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas Used by the Online Calculator of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons.
Chang Liu, Mengyu Wang, Da Long, Ye Zhang, Yan Chen, Qiang Wu
{"title":"Comparison of the Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas Used by the Online Calculator of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons.","authors":"Chang Liu, Mengyu Wang, Da Long, Ye Zhang, Yan Chen, Qiang Wu","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20241219-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the precision of toric intraocular lens (IOL) formulas used by the online calculator of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients undergoing phacoemulsification with toric IOL implantation from July 2021 to June 2023 in Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. The mean absolute prediction error (PE), standard deviation of the PE, and proportion of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated by vector analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 85 included patients, the mean and median absolute PE determined from the Barrett estimated posterior corneal astigmatism (EPCA), EVO 2.0, and Hoffer QST toric formulas varied considerably from those derived using the Kane toric formula (<i>P</i> < .001, <i>P</i> = .045, <i>P</i> < .001, respectively). For all toric formulas, the centroid of the PE deviated considerably from zero (<i>P</i> < .001). The EVO 2.0 toric formula yielded the best accuracy (61.2%) within ±0.50 D, followed by the Barrett EPCA (58.8%), Hoffer QST (58.8%), Barrett measured posterior corneal astigmatism (51.8%), and Kane toric (51.8%) formulas. However, the percentages of PEs 0.50 D or less and 0.75 D or less with all of the toric calculators did not differ significantly (<i>P</i> > .05). The Hoffer QST displayed the least mean absolute PEs in the groups with different astigmatism types, as well as in the groups with medium and long axial length and medium keratometry.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The newly introduced ESCRS online toric calculator is a useful tool that yielded consistent results in this study. The EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST toric formulas showed better performance, although the improved accuracy is likely to have minimal clinical importance. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2025;41(2):e120-e130.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 2","pages":"e120-e130"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","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-20241219-01","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 determine the precision of toric intraocular lens (IOL) formulas used by the online calculator of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS).
Methods: This retrospective study included patients undergoing phacoemulsification with toric IOL implantation from July 2021 to June 2023 in Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. The mean absolute prediction error (PE), standard deviation of the PE, and proportion of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated by vector analysis.
Results: Among the 85 included patients, the mean and median absolute PE determined from the Barrett estimated posterior corneal astigmatism (EPCA), EVO 2.0, and Hoffer QST toric formulas varied considerably from those derived using the Kane toric formula (P < .001, P = .045, P < .001, respectively). For all toric formulas, the centroid of the PE deviated considerably from zero (P < .001). The EVO 2.0 toric formula yielded the best accuracy (61.2%) within ±0.50 D, followed by the Barrett EPCA (58.8%), Hoffer QST (58.8%), Barrett measured posterior corneal astigmatism (51.8%), and Kane toric (51.8%) formulas. However, the percentages of PEs 0.50 D or less and 0.75 D or less with all of the toric calculators did not differ significantly (P > .05). The Hoffer QST displayed the least mean absolute PEs in the groups with different astigmatism types, as well as in the groups with medium and long axial length and medium keratometry.
Conclusions: The newly introduced ESCRS online toric calculator is a useful tool that yielded consistent results in this study. The EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST toric formulas showed better performance, although the improved accuracy is likely to have minimal clinical importance. [J Refract Surg. 2025;41(2):e120-e130.].
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
