Accuracy of no-history formulae for intraocular lens power calculation in post-myopic laser vision correction eyes: a multicenter study in Japan.

IF 1.9 3区医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-07-07 DOI:10.1007/s10384-025-01217-z

So Goto, Yosai Mori, Hidemasa Torii, Yumi Hasegawa, Takashi Kojima, Kazutaka Kamiya, Takuya Shiba, Kazunori Miyata

{"title":"Accuracy of no-history formulae for intraocular lens power calculation in post-myopic laser vision correction eyes: a multicenter study in Japan.","authors":"So Goto, Yosai Mori, Hidemasa Torii, Yumi Hasegawa, Takashi Kojima, Kazutaka Kamiya, Takuya Shiba, Kazunori Miyata","doi":"10.1007/s10384-025-01217-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the refractive prediction accuracy of seven no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC) eyes in Japanese patients.Study design: Multicenter retrospective case series.Methods: This study included patients with previous M-LVC who underwent cataract surgery between 2016 and 2023. IOL power calculation formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 (EVO 2.0), Post Myopic LASIK/PRK Hoffer QST (Hoffer QST), and Post-M-LVC PEARL-DGS (PEARL-DGS) formulas. These results were compared with those obtained from the Barrett True-K No History (BTKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, and ASCRS average formulas. Heteroscedastic testing for root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) was used to evaluate formula performance.Results: The study comprised 125 post-LASIK eyes from 89 patients. Only the BTKNH had mean numerical errors not significantly different from zero. The formulas were ranked by absolute prediction error (MAE): ASCRS average (0.42 D), BTKNH (0.43 D), Hoffer QST (0.46 D), Pearl-DGS and Shammas (0.46 D), EVO 2.0 (0.48 D), and Haigis-L (0.51 D). The BTKNH and ASCRS average demonstrated smaller RMSAE compared to Shammas (P < .0001). The Hoffer QST had a smaller RMSAE than Pearl-DGS (P = 0.02).Conclusion: The BTKNH, ASCRS average, and Hoffer QST formulas are precise and reliable for improving postoperative refractive outcomes in Japanese patients with a history of M-LVC.","PeriodicalId":14563,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10384-025-01217-z","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 compare the refractive prediction accuracy of seven no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC) eyes in Japanese patients.

Study design: Multicenter retrospective case series.

Methods: This study included patients with previous M-LVC who underwent cataract surgery between 2016 and 2023. IOL power calculation formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 (EVO 2.0), Post Myopic LASIK/PRK Hoffer QST (Hoffer QST), and Post-M-LVC PEARL-DGS (PEARL-DGS) formulas. These results were compared with those obtained from the Barrett True-K No History (BTKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, and ASCRS average formulas. Heteroscedastic testing for root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) was used to evaluate formula performance.

Results: The study comprised 125 post-LASIK eyes from 89 patients. Only the BTKNH had mean numerical errors not significantly different from zero. The formulas were ranked by absolute prediction error (MAE): ASCRS average (0.42 D), BTKNH (0.43 D), Hoffer QST (0.46 D), Pearl-DGS and Shammas (0.46 D), EVO 2.0 (0.48 D), and Haigis-L (0.51 D). The BTKNH and ASCRS average demonstrated smaller RMSAE compared to Shammas (P < .0001). The Hoffer QST had a smaller RMSAE than Pearl-DGS (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: The BTKNH, ASCRS average, and Hoffer QST formulas are precise and reliable for improving postoperative refractive outcomes in Japanese patients with a history of M-LVC.

查看原文本刊更多论文

近视后激光视力矫正眼人工晶状体度数计算无病史公式的准确性：日本的一项多中心研究。

目的：比较7种无历史人工晶状体（IOL）度数计算公式对日本近视后激光视力矫正（M-LVC）患者屈光预测的准确性。研究设计：多中心回顾性病例系列。方法：本研究纳入了2016年至2023年间接受白内障手术的既往M-LVC患者。使用扫描源光学相干生物计测量评估IOL功率计算公式。计算近视验证光学2.0 （EVO 2.0）、近视后LASIK/PRK Hoffer QST （Hoffer QST）和m - lvc后PEARL-DGS （PEARL-DGS）公式的屈光预测误差。将这些结果与Barrett True-K No History （BTKNH）、Haigis-L、Shammas和ASCRS平均公式所得结果进行比较。采用均方根绝对误差（RMSAE）的异方差检验来评价配方的性能。结果：本研究包括89例患者的125只lasik术后眼。只有BTKNH的平均数值误差与零没有显著差异。按绝对预测误差（MAE）排序：ASCRS平均（0.42 D）、BTKNH （0.43 D）、Hoffer QST （0.46 D）、Pearl-DGS and Shammas （0.46 D）、EVO 2.0 （0.48 D）、Haigis-L （0.51 D）。与Shammas相比，BTKNH和ASCRS的平均RMSAE较小（P < 0.0001）。Hoffer QST的RMSAE小于Pearl-DGS （P = 0.02）。结论：BTKNH、ASCRS平均值和Hoffer QST公式对于改善日本M-LVC患者术后屈光效果准确可靠。

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

Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

8.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology (JJO) was inaugurated in 1957 as a quarterly journal published in English by the Ophthalmology Department of the University of Tokyo, with the aim of disseminating the achievements of Japanese ophthalmologists worldwide. JJO remains the only Japanese ophthalmology journal published in English. In 1997, the Japanese Ophthalmological Society assumed the responsibility for publishing the Japanese Journal of Ophthalmology as its official English-language publication. Currently the journal is published bimonthly and accepts papers from authors worldwide. JJO has become an international interdisciplinary forum for the publication of basic science and clinical research papers.