Piero Zollet, Federico Macario, Marco Trevisi, Paolo Vinciguerra, Riccardo Vinciguerra
{"title":"Accuracy of PEARL-DGS Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Patients With Previous Myopic Laser Vision Correction.","authors":"Piero Zollet, Federico Macario, Marco Trevisi, Paolo Vinciguerra, Riccardo Vinciguerra","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20250707-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the accuracy of a new machine learning-based open-source IOL formula (PEARLS-DGS) in 100 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery and had a history of laser refractive surgery for myopic defects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The setting for this retrospective study was HUMANITAS Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. Data from 100 patients with a history of photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of the formula. The primary outcome measures were absolute refractive prediction error, refractive prediction error, and cumulative distribution of absolute refractive prediction error within multiple thresholds. These parameters were estimated post-hoc using the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K without history, ASCRS calculator average, EVO, Hoffer QST, and PEARL-DGS formulas. The cumulative distribution of the absolute refraction prediction error was analyzed and statistically tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EVO 2.0 showed the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) of 0.36 diopters (D), followed by Hoffer QST (0.38 D) and PEARL-DGS (0.41 D). The cumulative distribution of the absolute refractive prediction error at ±0.50 D threshold showed the following ranking: Hoffer QST (0.65), PEARL-DGS (0.61), EVO 2.0 (0.60), Barrett-True-K (0.56), Haigis-L, ASCRS (0.52), and Shammas (0.45). A significant difference was recorded between Shammas and Hoffer QST only at this threshold (<i>P</i> < .05). Statistical differences could not be detected otherwise.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The new PEARL-DGS IOL formula demonstrated similar accuracy and comparability in median refractive prediction error to the other current formulas in eyes with a history of myopic laser vision correction. The cumulative distribution of refractive prediction error of the PEARLS-DGS performed well even compared to the Hoffer QST results.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 9","pages":"e936-e942"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","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-20250707-02","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 accuracy of a new machine learning-based open-source IOL formula (PEARLS-DGS) in 100 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery and had a history of laser refractive surgery for myopic defects.
Methods: The setting for this retrospective study was HUMANITAS Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. Data from 100 patients with a history of photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of the formula. The primary outcome measures were absolute refractive prediction error, refractive prediction error, and cumulative distribution of absolute refractive prediction error within multiple thresholds. These parameters were estimated post-hoc using the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K without history, ASCRS calculator average, EVO, Hoffer QST, and PEARL-DGS formulas. The cumulative distribution of the absolute refraction prediction error was analyzed and statistically tested.
Results: EVO 2.0 showed the lowest median absolute error (MedAE) of 0.36 diopters (D), followed by Hoffer QST (0.38 D) and PEARL-DGS (0.41 D). The cumulative distribution of the absolute refractive prediction error at ±0.50 D threshold showed the following ranking: Hoffer QST (0.65), PEARL-DGS (0.61), EVO 2.0 (0.60), Barrett-True-K (0.56), Haigis-L, ASCRS (0.52), and Shammas (0.45). A significant difference was recorded between Shammas and Hoffer QST only at this threshold (P < .05). Statistical differences could not be detected otherwise.
Conclusions: The new PEARL-DGS IOL formula demonstrated similar accuracy and comparability in median refractive prediction error to the other current formulas in eyes with a history of myopic laser vision correction. The cumulative distribution of refractive prediction error of the PEARLS-DGS performed well even compared to the Hoffer QST results.
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.