Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos
{"title":"使用异方差统计方法和一种新的人工晶体常数优化方法对 9 种人工晶体功率计算公式进行评估。","authors":"Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos","doi":"10.1177/11206721241230347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12000,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Romero-Valero, Alicia Cárceles, Jorge L Alió, Carlos E Monera Lucas, Alejandro Moya Martínez, Jose Juan Martínez-Toldos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11206721241230347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241230347\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721241230347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的: 使用异方差统计分析和一种新的人工晶体常数优化方法,评估 9 种人工晶体功率计算公式的预测准确性:设计:回顾性病例系列:方法:使用 LenStar LS900(Haag-Streit,瑞士科尼茨)进行术前生物测量。计算了植入人工晶体的预测 SE 屈光度:Barrett Universal II、EVO-2.0、Hill RBF-3.0、Hill-RBF 2.0、Kane、PEARL-DGS、SRK-T、Hoffer-Q 和 Holladay-1。人工晶体常数在分析前进行了优化。采用异方差统计方法比较预测误差(PE)的标准差(SD):结果:共纳入 278 名患者的 278 只眼睛。Kane 预测误差的标准差为 0.4214D,是该数据库中最低的。Kane和EVO 2.0的PE SD值明显低于SRK-T、Holladay 1和Hoffer-Q。PEARL 公式的 PE 标差明显低于 SRK-T 和 Hoffer-Q。希尔-RBF 3.0 的 PE 标差与希尔-RBF 2.0、凯恩、EVO 2.0、巴雷特通用 II 和 PEARL 没有明显差异。结论:Kane 预测误差的 SD 值最低,其次是 EVO 2.0 和 PERL-DGS。然而,新一代公式的预测误差自评量之间没有发现明显的统计学差异。有必要进行进一步研究,以评估这些公式在极端眼睛中的准确性。
Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization.
Purpose: To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.
Design: Retrospective case series.
Methods: The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).
Results: Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.
Conclusions: the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Ophthalmology was founded in 1991 and is issued in print bi-monthly. It publishes only peer-reviewed original research reporting clinical observations and laboratory investigations with clinical relevance focusing on new diagnostic and surgical techniques, instrument and therapy updates, results of clinical trials and research findings.