{"title":"针对高度近视植入负屈光度眼内透镜的眼内透镜功率公式比较。","authors":"Woong-Joo Whang, Kyungmin Koh, Kenneth J Hoffer, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Enrico Lupardi, Leonardo Taroni, Hungwon Tchah, Giacomo Savini","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, ….</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative-diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia.\",\"authors\":\"Woong-Joo Whang, Kyungmin Koh, Kenneth J Hoffer, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Enrico Lupardi, Leonardo Taroni, Hungwon Tchah, Giacomo Savini\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective case series.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, ….</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-16\",\"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.0000000000001569\",\"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.0000000000001569","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative-diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia.
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs.
Design: Retrospective case series.
Setting: K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, ….
Methods: Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization.
Results: With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization.
Conclusions: With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.
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.