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}
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.].
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.