Comparison of Four Lens Power Formulas for Sutureless Scleral-Fixated Carlevale Lens.

Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) Pub Date : 2025-10-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OPTH.S535925
Agnieszka Dyrda, Liliana Araujo-Diaz, Amanda Rey, Maria S Pighin, Marta Pazos, Ignasi Jürgens
{"title":"Comparison of Four Lens Power Formulas for Sutureless Scleral-Fixated Carlevale Lens.","authors":"Agnieszka Dyrda, Liliana Araujo-Diaz, Amanda Rey, Maria S Pighin, Marta Pazos, Ignasi Jürgens","doi":"10.2147/OPTH.S535925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for sutureless scleral fixation (SSF) of the Carlevale IOL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective, single-center, interventional case series was conducted to compare predicted refractive outcomes using the SRK/T, Barrett II, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas in patients undergoing SSF of the Carlevale IOL. The main outcomes included mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.0 diopters (D).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-nine eyes of 69 patients were included. Only the Barrett II formula resulted in a systematic myopic error (p=0.014). The PE of SRKT, HofferQ, and Holladay 1 was closer to 0, indicating that the post-operative refractive outcome was nearer to the predicted value than that of Barrett II (p=0.002, p<0.001, p=0.003, respectively). MedAE and MAE ranged from 0.41 to 0.53 D and 0.6 to 0.67 D, respectively, without significant differences between the formulas. The percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D varied from 47.8 to 56.5% and 79.7 to 87%, respectively, showing no significant differences across the assessed formulas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas provide favorable refractive outcomes for the SSF of Carlevale IOL. The Barrett II formula is less accurate and is not recommended due to its systematic myopic refractive error.</p>","PeriodicalId":93945,"journal":{"name":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","volume":"19 ","pages":"3609-3617"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12499570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S535925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for sutureless scleral fixation (SSF) of the Carlevale IOL.

Methods: A prospective, single-center, interventional case series was conducted to compare predicted refractive outcomes using the SRK/T, Barrett II, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas in patients undergoing SSF of the Carlevale IOL. The main outcomes included mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.0 diopters (D).

Results: Sixty-nine eyes of 69 patients were included. Only the Barrett II formula resulted in a systematic myopic error (p=0.014). The PE of SRKT, HofferQ, and Holladay 1 was closer to 0, indicating that the post-operative refractive outcome was nearer to the predicted value than that of Barrett II (p=0.002, p<0.001, p=0.003, respectively). MedAE and MAE ranged from 0.41 to 0.53 D and 0.6 to 0.67 D, respectively, without significant differences between the formulas. The percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D varied from 47.8 to 56.5% and 79.7 to 87%, respectively, showing no significant differences across the assessed formulas.

Conclusion: The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and Holladay 1 formulas provide favorable refractive outcomes for the SSF of Carlevale IOL. The Barrett II formula is less accurate and is not recommended due to its systematic myopic refractive error.

无缝线巩膜固定卡氏镜四种放大率公式的比较。
目的:探讨Carlevale人工晶状体无缝线巩膜固定(SSF)人工晶状体度数计算公式的可预测性。方法:采用前瞻性、单中心、介入性病例系列,比较使用SRK/T、Barrett II、Hoffer Q和Holladay 1公式预测的Carlevale人工晶状体SSF患者的屈光结果。主要结果包括平均预测误差(PE)、中位绝对误差(MedAE)、平均绝对误差(MAE)和PE在±0.50和±1.0屈光度范围内的眼睛百分比(D)。结果:纳入69例患者69只眼。只有Barrett II公式导致系统近视误差(p=0.014)。SRKT、HofferQ和Holladay 1公式的PE均接近于0,表明其术后屈光结果比Barrett II公式更接近预测值(p=0.002, p)。结论:SRK/T、HofferQ和Holladay 1公式对Carlevale人工晶状体SSF具有较好的屈光结果。巴雷特II公式不太准确,不推荐,因为它的系统近视屈光不正。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信