{"title":"14 种眼球内透镜功率计算公式在超长眼球中的准确性。","authors":"Xinxin Li, Chunyuan Song, Yong Wang, Jing Wang, Qiongyan Tang, Zheming Wu, Yanwen Zhou, Juan Sun, Yanhong Jia, Zhenlin Lin, Shaowei Li","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06506-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of 14 formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in extremely long eyes with axial length (AL) over 30.0 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 211 eyes (211 patients) with ALs > 30.0 mm were successfully treated with cataract surgery without complications. Ocular biometric parameters were obtained from IOLMaster 700. Fourteen formulas were evaluated using the optimized A constants: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, PEARL-DGS, T2, SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (SRK/T<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 1<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 1<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 2<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 2<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub>). The mean prediction error (PE) and standard deviation (SD), mean absolute errors (MAE), median absolute errors (MedAE), and the percentage of prediction errors (PEs) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Kane formula had the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and MedAE (0.34 D). The highest percentage of PE within ± 0.25 D was for EVO 2.0 (37.91%) and the Holladay 1<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub> formulas (37.91%). The Kane formula had the highest percentage of PEs in the range of ± 0.50, ± 0.75, ± 1.00, and ± 2.00 D. There was no significant difference in PEs within ± 0.25, ± 0.50 ± 0.75 and ± 1.00 D between BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (P > .05) by using Cochran's Q test. The Holladay 2<sub>modified-W/K</sub> formula has the lowest percentage of hyperopic outcomes (29.38%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas have comparable accuracy for IOL power calculation in eyes with ALs > 30.0 mm.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"3619-3628"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of 14 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Xinxin Li, Chunyuan Song, Yong Wang, Jing Wang, Qiongyan Tang, Zheming Wu, Yanwen Zhou, Juan Sun, Yanhong Jia, Zhenlin Lin, Shaowei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00417-024-06506-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of 14 formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in extremely long eyes with axial length (AL) over 30.0 mm.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective study, 211 eyes (211 patients) with ALs > 30.0 mm were successfully treated with cataract surgery without complications. Ocular biometric parameters were obtained from IOLMaster 700. Fourteen formulas were evaluated using the optimized A constants: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, PEARL-DGS, T2, SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (SRK/T<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 1<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 1<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 2<sub>modified-W/K</sub>, Holladay 2<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub>). The mean prediction error (PE) and standard deviation (SD), mean absolute errors (MAE), median absolute errors (MedAE), and the percentage of prediction errors (PEs) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Kane formula had the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and MedAE (0.34 D). The highest percentage of PE within ± 0.25 D was for EVO 2.0 (37.91%) and the Holladay 1<sub>NP-modified-W/K</sub> formulas (37.91%). The Kane formula had the highest percentage of PEs in the range of ± 0.50, ± 0.75, ± 1.00, and ± 2.00 D. There was no significant difference in PEs within ± 0.25, ± 0.50 ± 0.75 and ± 1.00 D between BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (P > .05) by using Cochran's Q test. The Holladay 2<sub>modified-W/K</sub> formula has the lowest percentage of hyperopic outcomes (29.38%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas have comparable accuracy for IOL power calculation in eyes with ALs > 30.0 mm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3619-3628\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06506-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06506-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：比较 14 种公式在计算轴长（AL）超过 30.0 mm 的超长眼人工晶体（IOL）功率时的准确性：在这项回顾性研究中，有 211 只眼球（211 名患者）的轴长超过 30.0 毫米，并成功接受了白内障手术治疗，未出现并发症。眼部生物测量参数来自 IOLMaster 700。使用优化的 A 常数对 14 种公式进行了评估：巴雷特通用 II (BUII)、凯恩、Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0、PEARL-DGS、T2、SRK/T、好莱迪 1、好莱迪 2、Haigis 和 Wang-Koch AL 调整公式（SRK/T 修正-W/K、好莱迪 1 修正-W/K、好莱迪 1NP 修正-W/K、好莱迪 2 修正-W/K、好莱迪 2NP 修正-W/K）。对平均预测误差（PE）和标准差（SD）、平均绝对误差（MAE）、中位数绝对误差（MedAE）以及预测误差（PE）在± 0.25 D、± 0.50 D、± 1.00 D以内的百分比进行了分析：凯恩公式的 MAE（0.43 D）和 MedAE（0.34 D）最小。EVO 2.0（37.91%）和好利得 1NP 改良-W/K 配方（37.91%）的 PE 在 ± 0.25 D 以内的比例最高。通过 Cochran's Q 检验，BUII、Kane、EVO 2.0 和 Wang-Koch AL 调整配方之间在 ± 0.25、± 0.50 ± 0.75 和 ± 1.00 D 范围内的 PE 百分比没有显著差异（P > .05）。霍拉迪 2 改良-W/K公式的远视结果比例最低（29.38%）：结论：BUII、Kane、EVO 2.0和Wang-Koch AL调整公式在计算AL大于30.0 mm的眼睛的人工晶体功率时具有可比的准确性。
Accuracy of 14 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in extremely long eyes.
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of 14 formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in extremely long eyes with axial length (AL) over 30.0 mm.
Methods: In this retrospective study, 211 eyes (211 patients) with ALs > 30.0 mm were successfully treated with cataract surgery without complications. Ocular biometric parameters were obtained from IOLMaster 700. Fourteen formulas were evaluated using the optimized A constants: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, PEARL-DGS, T2, SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (SRK/Tmodified-W/K, Holladay 1modified-W/K, Holladay 1NP-modified-W/K, Holladay 2modified-W/K, Holladay 2NP-modified-W/K). The mean prediction error (PE) and standard deviation (SD), mean absolute errors (MAE), median absolute errors (MedAE), and the percentage of prediction errors (PEs) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 1.00 D were analyzed.
Results: The Kane formula had the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and MedAE (0.34 D). The highest percentage of PE within ± 0.25 D was for EVO 2.0 (37.91%) and the Holladay 1NP-modified-W/K formulas (37.91%). The Kane formula had the highest percentage of PEs in the range of ± 0.50, ± 0.75, ± 1.00, and ± 2.00 D. There was no significant difference in PEs within ± 0.25, ± 0.50 ± 0.75 and ± 1.00 D between BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas (P > .05) by using Cochran's Q test. The Holladay 2modified-W/K formula has the lowest percentage of hyperopic outcomes (29.38%).
Conclusions: The BUII, Kane, EVO 2.0 and Wang-Koch AL adjusted formulas have comparable accuracy for IOL power calculation in eyes with ALs > 30.0 mm.
期刊介绍：
Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
