Effect of Posterior Corneal Astigmatism Measured With Different Biometers on Toric IOL Power Calculation.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Journal of refractive surgery Pub Date : 2025-10-01 DOI:10.3928/1081597X-20250930-02

Aixia Jin, Jiaqing Zhang, Yifan Zhang, Kailin Chen, Xiaozhang Qiu, Yu Zhang, Xiaotong Han, Xuhua Tan, Lixia Luo

{"title":"Effect of Posterior Corneal Astigmatism Measured With Different Biometers on Toric IOL Power Calculation.","authors":"Aixia Jin, Jiaqing Zhang, Yifan Zhang, Kailin Chen, Xiaozhang Qiu, Yu Zhang, Xiaotong Han, Xuhua Tan, Lixia Luo","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20250930-02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To investigate the effect of posterior corneal astigmatism measured with different biometers on toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.Methods: This prospective case series study was conducted at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Patients undergoing measurements by the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), CASIA2 (Tomey Corporation), and Pentacam AXL (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH), uneventful cataract surgery, and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were included. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator with predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism (Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA, respectively) was evaluated.Results: A total of 94 patients (94 eyes) were included. Both Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA with the IOLMaster 700 showed lower median absolute prediction errors (MedAEs) than with the CASIA2 (0.38 to 0.39 vs 0.63 to 0.67 D, both P < .001) and Pentacam AXL (0.38 to 0.39 vs 0.50 to 0.54 D, both P < .05). Similarly, Barrett-PPCA with the Pentacam AXL showed a lower MedAE than with the CASIA2 (0.50 vs 0.63 D, P = .026). There was no significant difference in MedAEs between Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA for the IOLMaster 700 (0.39 vs 0.38 D, P = .438). Barrett-PPCA showed lower MedAEs than Barrett-MPCA for the CASIA2 (0.63 vs 0.67 D, P = .006) and Pentacam AXL (0.50 vs 0.54 D, P < .001).Conclusions: The IOLMaster 700 exhibited the highest prediction accuracy for toric IOL compared to the CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL. When compared with Barrett-MPCA, Barrett-PPCA yielded comparable prediction accuracy for the IOLMaster 700 and improved accuracy for the CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL.","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 10","pages":"e1032-e1041"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","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-20250930-02","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 investigate the effect of posterior corneal astigmatism measured with different biometers on toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

Methods: This prospective case series study was conducted at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Patients undergoing measurements by the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG), CASIA2 (Tomey Corporation), and Pentacam AXL (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH), uneventful cataract surgery, and toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were included. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator with predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism (Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA, respectively) was evaluated.

Results: A total of 94 patients (94 eyes) were included. Both Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA with the IOLMaster 700 showed lower median absolute prediction errors (MedAEs) than with the CASIA2 (0.38 to 0.39 vs 0.63 to 0.67 D, both P < .001) and Pentacam AXL (0.38 to 0.39 vs 0.50 to 0.54 D, both P < .05). Similarly, Barrett-PPCA with the Pentacam AXL showed a lower MedAE than with the CASIA2 (0.50 vs 0.63 D, P = .026). There was no significant difference in MedAEs between Barrett-PPCA and Barrett-MPCA for the IOLMaster 700 (0.39 vs 0.38 D, P = .438). Barrett-PPCA showed lower MedAEs than Barrett-MPCA for the CASIA2 (0.63 vs 0.67 D, P = .006) and Pentacam AXL (0.50 vs 0.54 D, P < .001).

Conclusions: The IOLMaster 700 exhibited the highest prediction accuracy for toric IOL compared to the CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL. When compared with Barrett-MPCA, Barrett-PPCA yielded comparable prediction accuracy for the IOLMaster 700 and improved accuracy for the CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同生物计测量后角膜散光对环形人工晶体度数计算的影响。

目的：探讨不同生物计测量角膜后散光对人工晶状体度数计算的影响。方法：本前瞻性病例系列研究在中国广州中山大学中山眼科中心进行。接受IOLMaster 700 （Carl Zeiss Meditec AG）、CASIA2 （Tomey Corporation）和Pentacam AXL （Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH）测量、平淡无奇的白内障手术和环形人工晶状体（IOL）植入术的患者包括在内。评估Barrett环面计算器预测和测量角膜后散光的准确性（Barrett- ppca和Barrett- mpca分别）。结果：共纳入94例患者（94只眼）。IOLMaster 700的Barrett-PPCA和Barrett-MPCA的中位绝对预测误差（medae）均低于CASIA2 （0.38 ~ 0.39 vs 0.63 ~ 0.67 D, P < 0.001）和Pentacam AXL （0.38 ~ 0.39 vs 0.50 ~ 0.54 D, P < 0.05）。同样，Pentacam AXL的Barrett-PPCA显示MedAE低于CASIA2 （0.50 vs 0.63 D, P = 0.026）。IOLMaster 700的Barrett-PPCA和Barrett-MPCA的medae无显著差异（0.39 vs 0.38 D, P = .438）。Barrett-PPCA显示CASIA2的medae低于Barrett-MPCA （0.63 vs 0.67 D, P = 0.006）和Pentacam AXL （0.50 vs 0.54 D, P < 0.001）。结论：与CASIA2和Pentacam AXL相比，IOLMaster 700对环形人工晶状体的预测精度最高。与Barrett-MPCA相比，Barrett-PPCA对IOLMaster 700的预测精度相当，对CASIA2和Pentacam AXL的预测精度也有所提高。

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.