Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Post-Hyperopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes: Comparing Legacy and New No-History Formulas.

IF 4.2 1区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

American Journal of Ophthalmology Pub Date : 2025-09-09 DOI:10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.010

Sanjana Suraneni,Adam R Bleeker,Abdelrahman M Anter,Sebastian Leal,David A Murphy,Kamran M Riaz,David L Cooke,Rahul S Tonk

{"title":"Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Post-Hyperopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes: Comparing Legacy and New No-History Formulas.","authors":"Sanjana Suraneni,Adam R Bleeker,Abdelrahman M Anter,Sebastian Leal,David A Murphy,Kamran M Riaz,David L Cooke,Rahul S Tonk","doi":"10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\r\nTo compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new post-refractive formulas in eyes with previous hyperopic laser vision correction (H-LVC).\r\n\r\nDESIGN\r\nRetrospective cohort study.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\n▒ SETTING: Two academic medical centers.\r\n\r\nSUBJECTS\r\n153 eyes (109 patients) with previous H-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. An SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry (TK) values.\r\n\r\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES\r\nRefractive prediction errors were calculated and compared for two legacy H-LVC formulas using K values, six new H-LVC formulas using K values, and four new H-LVC formulas using PK or TK values. All formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE) and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D. Heteroscedastic (RMSE) testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nWhen ranked by RMSE, newer formulas ranked higher than legacy formulas, and new formulas with PK/TK values ranked higher than versions without PK/TK values. Using heteroscedastic (RMSE) testing, Barrett True K NH-K was superior to Shammas PHL (p<0.001). Shammas-Cooke (Kpost = 0.8977 x K - 0.2976 x AL + 11.7149) and K6-TK were superior to their prior H-LVC versions (Shammas-PHL and K6-K, respectively) (p<0.05).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe top-ranking formulas (Barrett True K-TK, K6-TK, and EVO 2.0-PK) were all new H-LVC formulas. Formula performance may variably improve with PK/TK values. When PK/TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0-K, Barrett True K NH-K, and Pearl DGS may be the most reliable formulas.","PeriodicalId":7568,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.09.010","RegionNum":1,"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 compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new post-refractive formulas in eyes with previous hyperopic laser vision correction (H-LVC). DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. METHODS ▒ SETTING: Two academic medical centers. SUBJECTS 153 eyes (109 patients) with previous H-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. An SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry (TK) values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Refractive prediction errors were calculated and compared for two legacy H-LVC formulas using K values, six new H-LVC formulas using K values, and four new H-LVC formulas using PK or TK values. All formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE) and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D. Heteroscedastic (RMSE) testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance. RESULTS When ranked by RMSE, newer formulas ranked higher than legacy formulas, and new formulas with PK/TK values ranked higher than versions without PK/TK values. Using heteroscedastic (RMSE) testing, Barrett True K NH-K was superior to Shammas PHL (p<0.001). Shammas-Cooke (Kpost = 0.8977 x K - 0.2976 x AL + 11.7149) and K6-TK were superior to their prior H-LVC versions (Shammas-PHL and K6-K, respectively) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The top-ranking formulas (Barrett True K-TK, K6-TK, and EVO 2.0-PK) were all new H-LVC formulas. Formula performance may variably improve with PK/TK values. When PK/TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0-K, Barrett True K NH-K, and Pearl DGS may be the most reliable formulas.

查看原文本刊更多论文

远视后激光视力矫正眼的人工晶状体度数计算：比较传统和新的无历史公式。

目的比较传统和新型屈光后配方与既往远视激光视力矫正（H-LVC）的屈光精度。设计回顾性队列研究。方法设置：两个学术医疗中心。研究对象：在2019-2023年期间接受白内障手术的既往H-LVC患者153只眼睛（109名患者）。使用SS-OCT生物计获得生物特征测量，包括标准(K)、后验（PK）和总角膜密度（TK）值。计算并比较两种使用K值的传统H-LVC公式、6种使用K值的新H-LVC公式和4种使用PK或TK值的新H-LVC公式的屈光预测误差。采用均方根误差（RMSE）和预测误差在±0.50 d内的眼的百分比对所有公式进行排序。采用异方差（RMSE）检验评价公式的相对性能。结果在均方根误差排序中，新公式排名高于旧公式，有PK/TK值的新公式排名高于无PK/TK值的新公式。采用异方差（RMSE）检验，Barrett True K NH-K优于Shammas PHL （p<0.001）。Shammas-Cooke （Kpost = 0.8977 × K - 0.2976 × AL + 11.7149）和K6-TK优于先前的H-LVC版本（Shammas-PHL和K6-K）（p<0.05）。结论Barrett True K-TK、K6-TK、EVO 2.0-PK均为H-LVC新配方。配方性能随PK/TK值的变化而变化。当PK/TK值不可用时，EVO 2.0-K、Barrett True K NH-K和Pearl DGS可能是最可靠的公式。

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

American Journal of Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

9.20

自引率

7.10%

发文量

406

审稿时长

36 days

期刊介绍： The American Journal of Ophthalmology is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that welcomes the submission of original, previously unpublished manuscripts directed to ophthalmologists and visual science specialists describing clinical investigations, clinical observations, and clinically relevant laboratory investigations. Published monthly since 1884, the full text of the American Journal of Ophthalmology and supplementary material are also presented online at www.AJO.com and on ScienceDirect. The American Journal of Ophthalmology publishes Full-Length Articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Correspondences, Books Reports and Announcements. Brief Reports and Case Reports are no longer published. We recommend submitting Brief Reports and Case Reports to our companion publication, the American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports. Manuscripts are accepted with the understanding that they have not been and will not be published elsewhere substantially in any format, and that there are no ethical problems with the content or data collection. Authors may be requested to produce the data upon which the manuscript is based and to answer expeditiously any questions about the manuscript or its authors.