Influence of Manufacturing Tolerance and Formula Thickness Type in the Prediction Error of Multifocal Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Journal of refractive surgery Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI:10.3928/1081597X-20250707-03

Joaquín Fernández, Filomena Ribeiro, Noemí Burguera, Marina Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo

{"title":"Influence of Manufacturing Tolerance and Formula Thickness Type in the Prediction Error of Multifocal Intraocular Lens Power Calculation.","authors":"Joaquín Fernández, Filomena Ribeiro, Noemí Burguera, Marina Rodríguez-Calvo-de-Mora, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20250707-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To assess differences in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation prediction error (PE) considering the manufacturing tolerance or exact power (EP) versus labeled power (LP), and to compare accuracy using the Barrett formula with optimized constant versus a thick-lens formula.Methods: The PE and absolute PE were calculated for a random eye of patients implanted with the multifocal Liberty Q-Flex 640PM IOL (Medicontur Ltd) considering the LP and the EP provided by the manufacturer. The outcomes for the Barrett with optimized constant formula and a thick-lens formula personalized for the surgeon, biometer, and IOL were compared.Results: A total of 155 eyes were included in the analysis. The mean absolute tolerance was 0.12 diopters (D) (range: 15.00 to 25.00 D) and 0.19 D (range: 25.00 to 30.00 D). These mean values corresponded to 0.07 and 0.11 D at the corneal plane, respectively (P = .002). Differences in mean PE considering the LP versus EP were 0.05 D or less (P > .05) for both formulas. No differences were found for absolute PE with a magnitude of 0.01 D or less (P < .05). The percentage of eyes within ±0.375 D ranged between 74.2% and 75.5% (P > .05).Conclusions: The percentage of eyes within ±0.375 D did not increase using EP in comparison to LP in patients implanted with a multifocal IOL with powers ranging from 18.00 to 27.00 D. If the constant is properly optimized, a thick-lens formula also results in no clinically relevant differences versus the Barrett formula.","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 9","pages":"e943-e949"},"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-20250707-03","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 assess differences in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation prediction error (PE) considering the manufacturing tolerance or exact power (EP) versus labeled power (LP), and to compare accuracy using the Barrett formula with optimized constant versus a thick-lens formula.

Methods: The PE and absolute PE were calculated for a random eye of patients implanted with the multifocal Liberty Q-Flex 640PM IOL (Medicontur Ltd) considering the LP and the EP provided by the manufacturer. The outcomes for the Barrett with optimized constant formula and a thick-lens formula personalized for the surgeon, biometer, and IOL were compared.

Results: A total of 155 eyes were included in the analysis. The mean absolute tolerance was 0.12 diopters (D) (range: 15.00 to 25.00 D) and 0.19 D (range: 25.00 to 30.00 D). These mean values corresponded to 0.07 and 0.11 D at the corneal plane, respectively (P = .002). Differences in mean PE considering the LP versus EP were 0.05 D or less (P > .05) for both formulas. No differences were found for absolute PE with a magnitude of 0.01 D or less (P < .05). The percentage of eyes within ±0.375 D ranged between 74.2% and 75.5% (P > .05).

Conclusions: The percentage of eyes within ±0.375 D did not increase using EP in comparison to LP in patients implanted with a multifocal IOL with powers ranging from 18.00 to 27.00 D. If the constant is properly optimized, a thick-lens formula also results in no clinically relevant differences versus the Barrett formula.

查看原文本刊更多论文

制造公差和配方厚度对多焦人工晶状体度数计算预测误差的影响。

目的：评估人工晶状体（IOL）度数计算预测误差（PE）在考虑制造公差或精确度数（EP）与标记度数（LP）时的差异，并比较具有优化常数的Barrett公式与厚晶状体公式的准确性。方法：随机选取一只眼植入美国Medicontur公司多焦Liberty Q-Flex 640PM人工晶状体患者，计算其眼压和绝对眼压。比较了巴雷特优化常数配方和外科医生个性化的厚晶状体配方、生物计和人工晶体的结果。结果：共纳入155只眼。平均绝对容差为0.12屈光度(D)（范围：15.00至25.00 D）和0.19 D（范围：25.00至30.00 D）。这些平均值分别对应于角膜平面的0.07和0.11 D （P = 0.002）。考虑LP与EP的平均PE差异为0.05 D或更小（P < 0.05）。绝对PE在0.01 D及以下无差异（P < 0.05）。在±0.375 D范围内的眼睛百分比介于74.2%和75.5%之间（P < 0.05）。结论：与LP相比，使用EP的患者在±0.375 D范围内的眼睛比例没有增加，如果该常数适当优化，厚晶状体配方与Barrett配方也没有临床相关差异。

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

$Journal of refractive surgery$

Journal of refractive surgery 医学-外科

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

12.50%

发文量

160

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

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.