角膜近视屈光手术后 12 个眼内透镜功率公式的准确性。

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Xin Rong, Jiewei Liu, Lin Jiang, Xiaogang Wang, Tianfeng Feng, Zhenyang Lu, Zeqi Fan, Hua Yan
{"title":"角膜近视屈光手术后 12 个眼内透镜功率公式的准确性。","authors":"Xin Rong, Jiewei Liu, Lin Jiang, Xiaogang Wang, Tianfeng Feng, Zhenyang Lu, Zeqi Fan, Hua Yan","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20240422-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the predictive accuracy of new-generation online intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery (LRS) and to evaluate the influence of corneal asphericity on the predictive accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors retrospectively evaluated 52 patients (78 eyes) with a history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) who subsequently underwent cataract surgery. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 12 no-history new online formulas: 8 formulas with post-LRS versions (Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, and Pearl DGS) using keratometry and posterior/total keratometry measured by IOLMaster 700 and 4 formulas without post-LRS versions (Cooke K6 and Kane) using keratometry and total keratometry. The refractive prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with prediction errors of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±1.50 diopters (D) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MAEs of the 12 formulas were significantly different (F = 83.66, <i>P</i> < .001). The MAEs ranged from 0.62 to 0.94 D and from 1.07 to 1.84 D in the formulas with and without post-LRS versions, respectively. The EVO formula produced the lowest MAE (0.60) and MedAE (0.47), followed by the Barrett True-K (0.69 and 0.50, respectively). Each percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error was also significantly different among the 12 formulas (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EVO and Barrett True-K formulas demonstrate comparable performance to the other existing formulas in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK. Surgeons should use these formulas with post-LRS versions and input keratometric values whenever possible. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(6):e354-e361.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"40 6","pages":"e354-e361"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of 12 Intraocular Lens Power Formulas After Corneal Myopic Refractive Surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Xin Rong, Jiewei Liu, Lin Jiang, Xiaogang Wang, Tianfeng Feng, Zhenyang Lu, Zeqi Fan, Hua Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/1081597X-20240422-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the predictive accuracy of new-generation online intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery (LRS) and to evaluate the influence of corneal asphericity on the predictive accuracy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors retrospectively evaluated 52 patients (78 eyes) with a history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) who subsequently underwent cataract surgery. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 12 no-history new online formulas: 8 formulas with post-LRS versions (Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, and Pearl DGS) using keratometry and posterior/total keratometry measured by IOLMaster 700 and 4 formulas without post-LRS versions (Cooke K6 and Kane) using keratometry and total keratometry. The refractive prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with prediction errors of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±1.50 diopters (D) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The MAEs of the 12 formulas were significantly different (F = 83.66, <i>P</i> < .001). The MAEs ranged from 0.62 to 0.94 D and from 1.07 to 1.84 D in the formulas with and without post-LRS versions, respectively. The EVO formula produced the lowest MAE (0.60) and MedAE (0.47), followed by the Barrett True-K (0.69 and 0.50, respectively). Each percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error was also significantly different among the 12 formulas (<i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EVO and Barrett True-K formulas demonstrate comparable performance to the other existing formulas in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK. Surgeons should use these formulas with post-LRS versions and input keratometric values whenever possible. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2024;40(6):e354-e361.]</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\"40 6\",\"pages\":\"e354-e361\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"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-20240422-01\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20240422-01","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

摘要

目的:评估新一代在线眼内晶状体(IOL)功率公式对既往接受过近视激光屈光手术(LRS)的眼睛的预测准确性,并评估角膜非球面性对预测准确性的影响:作者对 52 名曾接受过激光原位角膜磨镶术(LASIK)或光屈光性角膜切削术(PRK)、随后又接受了白内障手术的患者(78 只眼)进行了回顾性评估。计算了 12 个无历史新在线公式的屈光预测误差:使用 IOLMaster 700 测量角膜度数和后角膜度数/总角膜度数,计算了 8 种具有后 LRS 版本的公式(Barrett True-K、EVO 2.0、Hoffer QST 和 Pearl DGS);使用角膜度数和总角膜度数,计算了 4 种不具有后 LRS 版本的公式(Cooke K6 和 Kane)。比较了屈光预测误差、平均绝对误差(MAE)以及预测误差为±0.25、±0.50、±0.75、±1.00 和 ±1.50屈光度(D)的眼睛百分比:12 种公式的 MAEs 有显著差异(F = 83.66,P < .001)。有 LRS 后版本和无 LRS 后版本配方的 MAE 分别为 0.62 至 0.94 D 和 1.07 至 1.84 D。EVO 配方的 MAE(0.60)和 MedAE(0.47)最低,其次是 Barrett True-K(分别为 0.69 和 0.50)。12 种配方中屈光预测误差眼的百分比也有显著差异(P < .001):EVO和Barrett True-K公式在近视LASIK/PRK病例中的表现与其他现有公式相当。外科医生应尽可能将这些公式与 LRS 后版本一起使用,并输入角膜测量值。[J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e354-e361]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy of 12 Intraocular Lens Power Formulas After Corneal Myopic Refractive Surgery.

Purpose: To assess the predictive accuracy of new-generation online intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery (LRS) and to evaluate the influence of corneal asphericity on the predictive accuracy.

Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated 52 patients (78 eyes) with a history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) who subsequently underwent cataract surgery. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 12 no-history new online formulas: 8 formulas with post-LRS versions (Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, and Pearl DGS) using keratometry and posterior/total keratometry measured by IOLMaster 700 and 4 formulas without post-LRS versions (Cooke K6 and Kane) using keratometry and total keratometry. The refractive prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with prediction errors of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±1.50 diopters (D) were compared.

Results: The MAEs of the 12 formulas were significantly different (F = 83.66, P < .001). The MAEs ranged from 0.62 to 0.94 D and from 1.07 to 1.84 D in the formulas with and without post-LRS versions, respectively. The EVO formula produced the lowest MAE (0.60) and MedAE (0.47), followed by the Barrett True-K (0.69 and 0.50, respectively). Each percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error was also significantly different among the 12 formulas (P < .001).

Conclusions: The EVO and Barrett True-K formulas demonstrate comparable performance to the other existing formulas in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK. Surgeons should use these formulas with post-LRS versions and input keratometric values whenever possible. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(6):e354-e361.].

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信