{"title":"比较角膜测量法和角膜总动力(由基于光学扫描光源的光学生物测量仪测量)在亚洲人眼中的人工晶体动力计算。","authors":"Giacomo Savini, Leonardo Taroni, Sohee Jeon, Kyungmin Koh, Hyun Seung Yang, Adi Abulafia, Enrico Lupardi, Kenneth J Hoffer, Antonio Moramarco, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether standard keratometry (K) or total corneal power (TCP) leads to more accurate refractive outcomes for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Public hospital.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preoperatively, all patients underwent optical biometry with Anterion, a swept-source optical coherence tomography device providing both K and TCP. The same IOL model was implanted in all cases. The whole sample was divided into a training dataset, used to optimize the formula constants, and a testing dataset, used to investigate the spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE) of 8 IOL power formulas. Trueness, precision, and accuracy were evaluated by means of the robust 2-sample t test. Cochran Q test was performed to assess whether the percentage of eyes with an SEQ-PE within each threshold was significantly different; in such an event, the McNemar test was then applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the training and testing datasets included 317 eyes. No significant differences were detected for trueness because of constant optimization. Precision and accuracy were better when K was entered, although a statistically significant difference was observed only with the EVO (precision: P = .02 and accuracy: P = .03) and Haigis ( P < .01 for both precision and accuracy) formulas. No significant differences were observed for the percentage of eyes with an absolute SEQ-PE within any threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With most formulas, IOL power calculation is not more accurate when TCP is used instead of K.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1117-1122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of keratometry and total corneal power, as measured by an SS-OCT-based optical biometer, for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Giacomo Savini, Leonardo Taroni, Sohee Jeon, Kyungmin Koh, Hyun Seung Yang, Adi Abulafia, Enrico Lupardi, Kenneth J Hoffer, Antonio Moramarco, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate whether standard keratometry (K) or total corneal power (TCP) leads to more accurate refractive outcomes for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Public hospital.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preoperatively, all patients underwent optical biometry with Anterion, a swept-source optical coherence tomography device providing both K and TCP. The same IOL model was implanted in all cases. The whole sample was divided into a training dataset, used to optimize the formula constants, and a testing dataset, used to investigate the spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE) of 8 IOL power formulas. Trueness, precision, and accuracy were evaluated by means of the robust 2-sample t test. Cochran Q test was performed to assess whether the percentage of eyes with an SEQ-PE within each threshold was significantly different; in such an event, the McNemar test was then applied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both the training and testing datasets included 317 eyes. No significant differences were detected for trueness because of constant optimization. Precision and accuracy were better when K was entered, although a statistically significant difference was observed only with the EVO (precision: P = .02 and accuracy: P = .03) and Haigis ( P < .01 for both precision and accuracy) formulas. No significant differences were observed for the percentage of eyes with an absolute SEQ-PE within any threshold.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With most formulas, IOL power calculation is not more accurate when TCP is used instead of K.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1117-1122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001515\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001515","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:研究标准角膜度数(K)或总角膜力(TCP)是否能为眼内人工晶体(IOL)功率计算带来更准确的屈光结果:环境:公立医院:设计:对诊断测试工具进行回顾性评估:所有患者在术前都使用 Anterion(海德堡)光学相干断层扫描仪进行了光学生物测量,该仪器可提供 K 值和 TCP 值。所有病例都植入了相同型号的人工晶体。整个样本分为训练数据集和测试数据集,训练数据集用于优化公式常数,测试数据集用于研究 8 个 IOL 功率公式的球面等效预测误差(SEQ-PE)。真实度、精确度和准确度通过稳健的双样本 t 检验进行评估。通过 Cochran's Q 检验来评估 SEQ-PE 在每个阈值内的眼睛百分比是否存在显著差异;如果存在显著差异,则采用 McNemar 检验:结果:训练和测试数据集都包括 317 只眼睛。由于不断优化,在真实度方面没有发现明显差异。输入 K 时,精确度和准确度较高,但只有 EVO(精确度:p = 0.02,准确度:p = 0.03)和 Haigis 公式(p 结论)在统计学上有显著差异:在大多数公式中,使用 TCP 而不是 K 计算人工晶体功率并不会更准确。
Comparison of keratometry and total corneal power, as measured by an SS-OCT-based optical biometer, for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian eyes.
Purpose: To investigate whether standard keratometry (K) or total corneal power (TCP) leads to more accurate refractive outcomes for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.
Setting: Public hospital.
Design: Retrospective evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument.
Methods: Preoperatively, all patients underwent optical biometry with Anterion, a swept-source optical coherence tomography device providing both K and TCP. The same IOL model was implanted in all cases. The whole sample was divided into a training dataset, used to optimize the formula constants, and a testing dataset, used to investigate the spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE) of 8 IOL power formulas. Trueness, precision, and accuracy were evaluated by means of the robust 2-sample t test. Cochran Q test was performed to assess whether the percentage of eyes with an SEQ-PE within each threshold was significantly different; in such an event, the McNemar test was then applied.
Results: Both the training and testing datasets included 317 eyes. No significant differences were detected for trueness because of constant optimization. Precision and accuracy were better when K was entered, although a statistically significant difference was observed only with the EVO (precision: P = .02 and accuracy: P = .03) and Haigis ( P < .01 for both precision and accuracy) formulas. No significant differences were observed for the percentage of eyes with an absolute SEQ-PE within any threshold.
Conclusions: With most formulas, IOL power calculation is not more accurate when TCP is used instead of K.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS).
JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.