{"title":"气体填塞白内障玻璃体切除术中生物识别配方的术后屈光效果。","authors":"Yu-Jin Choi, Donghyun Jee","doi":"10.3341/kjo.2023.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.</p>","PeriodicalId":17883,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","volume":"37 4","pages":"322-327"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/74/kjo-2023-0012.PMC10427902.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade.\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Jin Choi, Donghyun Jee\",\"doi\":\"10.3341/kjo.2023.0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"322-327\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/74/kjo-2023-0012.PMC10427902.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2023.0012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2023.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:探讨人工晶状体切除术中人工晶状体度数计算方法的屈光准确性。方法:采用四种常用的人工晶状体度数公式:Hoffer Q(87眼)、Holladay 1(78眼)、Holladay 2(91眼)和SRK/T(101眼),对357例接受晶状体切除术的357眼进行回顾性研究。根据预测的术后屈光误差计算平均屈光不差(ME)和平均绝对屈光不差(MAE),并采用方差分析检验进行比较。受试者分为高度近视眼(眼轴长度≥26 mm)和非高度近视眼(眼轴长度≤26 mm)。结果:晶状体切除术后的ME和MAE在4种IOL度数公式中差异无统计学意义(p = 0.546, p = 0.495)。高度近视组与非高度近视组的计算公式差异无统计学意义(ME: p = 0.526、p = 0.482;MAE: p = 0.715和p = 0.627)。无论采用何种人工晶状体配方,ME均显示近视偏移。在所有配方中,高度近视组的ME均比非高度近视组有更大的近视偏移。结论:我们的研究没有发现任何配方在晶状体切除术中的优越性。然而,在晶状体切除术中,在计算人工晶状体度数时应考虑可能的近视移位。尤其在高度近视患者的晶状体手术中,在选择人工晶状体时应考虑更多的近视偏移。
Postoperative Refractive Outcomes of Biometric Formulas in Phacovitrectomy with Gas Tamponade.
Purpose: To investigate the refractive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for biometric formulas in phacovitrectomy.
Methods: This retrospective study included 357 eyes of 357 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy using four commonly available IOL power formulas: Hoffer Q (87 eyes), Holladay 1 (78 eyes), Holladay 2 (91 eyes), and SRK/T (101 eyes). The mean refractive error (ME) and the mean absolute refractive error (MAE) were calculated based on the predicted postoperative refraction error, and they were compared using analysis of variance test. Subjects were divided into high myopic eyes (axial length, ≥26 mm) and nonhigh myopic eyes (axial length, <26 mm).
Results: The ME and the MAE after phacovitrectomy did not show a significant difference among the four IOL power formulas (p = 0.546 and p = 0.495, respectively). There was no significant statistical difference in formulas when the eyes were grouped into high myopia and nonhigh myopia (ME: p = 0.526 and p = 0.482, respectively; MAE: p = 0.715 and p = 0.627, respectively). The ME showed myopic shift in all formulas regardless of IOL formula used. The ME showed greater myopic shift in high myopia group than nonhigh myopia group in all formulas.
Conclusions: Our study did not find evidence for superiority of any formula in phacovitrectomy. However, in phacovitrectomy, possible myopic shift should be considered for IOL power calculation. Especially, in phacovitrecotmy in patients with high myopia, more myopic shift should be considered when selecting IOL.