Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in microspherophakia patients: comparison of 7 formulas.

IF 2 4区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmic Research Pub Date : 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1159/000545050

Yang Sun, Tianhui Chen, Zexu Chen, Wannan Jia, Zhennan Zhao, Yongxiang Jiang

{"title":"Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in microspherophakia patients: comparison of 7 formulas.","authors":"Yang Sun, Tianhui Chen, Zexu Chen, Wannan Jia, Zhennan Zhao, Yongxiang Jiang","doi":"10.1159/000545050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: To compare the accuracy of seven formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients with microspherophakia (MSP).Methods: A retrospective case series included 44 eyes from 28 patients with MSP. The mean prediction error (PE) was calculated and the accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ± 0.25 diopters (D), ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 D. Depending on whether the patients had Marfan syndrome (MFS), MSP patients 36 were sub-divided into MFS and Non-MFS group.Results: In the non-MFS subgroup, the performance of formulas ranked by FPI from highest to lowest was BUII, EVO, Kane, Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. In the MFS subgroup, Kane achieved the best accuracy regarding the lowest MedAE and the largest percentage of PE in the range of ± 0.50 D. Similar results were obtained in eyes with shallow ACD. In the regular ACD subgroup, the EVO provided the highest prediction accuracy and SRK/T took the second place. In the deep ACD subgroup, Holladay 1 performed superiorly presenting the lowest SD values, MAE and MedAE.Conclusions: Overall, new generation formulas showed a better trend of refractive outcomes in MSP patients. The Holladay 1 formula was suggested for eyes with deep ACD, while Haigis was not recommended.","PeriodicalId":19662,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545050","RegionNum":4,"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

Introduction: To compare the accuracy of seven formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients with microspherophakia (MSP).

Methods: A retrospective case series included 44 eyes from 28 patients with MSP. The mean prediction error (PE) was calculated and the accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ± 0.25 diopters (D), ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 D. Depending on whether the patients had Marfan syndrome (MFS), MSP patients 36 were sub-divided into MFS and Non-MFS group.

Results: In the non-MFS subgroup, the performance of formulas ranked by FPI from highest to lowest was BUII, EVO, Kane, Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. In the MFS subgroup, Kane achieved the best accuracy regarding the lowest MedAE and the largest percentage of PE in the range of ± 0.50 D. Similar results were obtained in eyes with shallow ACD. In the regular ACD subgroup, the EVO provided the highest prediction accuracy and SRK/T took the second place. In the deep ACD subgroup, Holladay 1 performed superiorly presenting the lowest SD values, MAE and MedAE.

Conclusions: Overall, new generation formulas showed a better trend of refractive outcomes in MSP patients. The Holladay 1 formula was suggested for eyes with deep ACD, while Haigis was not recommended.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ophthalmic Research 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

3.80

自引率

4.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： ''Ophthalmic Research'' features original papers and reviews reporting on translational and clinical studies. Authors from throughout the world cover research topics on every field in connection with physical, physiologic, pharmacological, biochemical and molecular biological aspects of ophthalmology. This journal also aims to provide a record of international clinical research for both researchers and clinicians in ophthalmology. Finally, the transfer of information from fundamental research to clinical research and clinical practice is particularly welcome.