Jialin Xu, Ke Feng, Er Mo, Yitong Xu, Chenyuan Zhu, Yun-E Zhao, Jin Li, Fang Huang
{"title":"囊膜张力环对九种新一代长眼人工晶体配方精度的影响。","authors":"Jialin Xu, Ke Feng, Er Mo, Yitong Xu, Chenyuan Zhu, Yun-E Zhao, Jin Li, Fang Huang","doi":"10.3928/1081597X-20241204-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the effect of capsular tension rings (CTRs) on the accuracy of nine new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in long eyes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 106 eyes (106 patients) with CTR (CTR group) and another 106 eyes (106 patients) without CTR (NCTR group) were analyzed. The differences in mean prediction error, standard deviation, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and greater than ±1.00 diopter (D) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the CTR group, only the Hoffer QST and VRF-G formulas showed significantly lower MedAE compared to the NCTR group. There was no statistically significant difference found among other formulas. The VRF-G and Hoffer QST formulas had lower MAE (0.351 to 0.367) than the Kane (0.469) (<i>P</i> < .05). The K6 and Pearl-DGS formulas had higher MAE (0.441 to 0.452) than the Zhu-Lu (0.351) and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0 (0.377) (<i>P</i> < .05). In the NCTR group, the Zhu-Lu and RBF 3.0 formulas had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.411) compared to the Kane (0.477) (<i>P</i> < .05). The Zhu-Lu and EVO 2.0 formulas also had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.363) than Pearl-DGS (0.429) (<i>P</i> < .05), and the EVO 2.0 had lower MedAE (0.273) than the Kane (0.433) (<i>P</i> < .05). The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (76 to 85, 71.70% to 80.19%) of the RBF3.0, K6, EVO 2.0, and Zhu-Lu formulas were higher than Kane (53.77%) (<i>P</i> < .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CTR implantation does not improve the refractive prediction accuracy of the most new generation IOL formula. The Zhu-Lu formula is recommended for use in long eyes, regardless of CTR implantation. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2025;41(2):e114-e119.]</b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":16951,"journal":{"name":"Journal of refractive surgery","volume":"41 2","pages":"e114-e119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Capsular Tension Ring on the Accuracy of Nine New-Generation IOL Formulas in Long Eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Jialin Xu, Ke Feng, Er Mo, Yitong Xu, Chenyuan Zhu, Yun-E Zhao, Jin Li, Fang Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.3928/1081597X-20241204-01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the effect of capsular tension rings (CTRs) on the accuracy of nine new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in long eyes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 106 eyes (106 patients) with CTR (CTR group) and another 106 eyes (106 patients) without CTR (NCTR group) were analyzed. The differences in mean prediction error, standard deviation, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and greater than ±1.00 diopter (D) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the CTR group, only the Hoffer QST and VRF-G formulas showed significantly lower MedAE compared to the NCTR group. There was no statistically significant difference found among other formulas. The VRF-G and Hoffer QST formulas had lower MAE (0.351 to 0.367) than the Kane (0.469) (<i>P</i> < .05). The K6 and Pearl-DGS formulas had higher MAE (0.441 to 0.452) than the Zhu-Lu (0.351) and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0 (0.377) (<i>P</i> < .05). In the NCTR group, the Zhu-Lu and RBF 3.0 formulas had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.411) compared to the Kane (0.477) (<i>P</i> < .05). The Zhu-Lu and EVO 2.0 formulas also had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.363) than Pearl-DGS (0.429) (<i>P</i> < .05), and the EVO 2.0 had lower MedAE (0.273) than the Kane (0.433) (<i>P</i> < .05). The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (76 to 85, 71.70% to 80.19%) of the RBF3.0, K6, EVO 2.0, and Zhu-Lu formulas were higher than Kane (53.77%) (<i>P</i> < .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CTR implantation does not improve the refractive prediction accuracy of the most new generation IOL formula. The Zhu-Lu formula is recommended for use in long eyes, regardless of CTR implantation. <b>[<i>J Refract Surg</i>. 2025;41(2):e114-e119.]</b>.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16951,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\"41 2\",\"pages\":\"e114-e119\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"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-20241204-01\",\"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-20241204-01","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of Capsular Tension Ring on the Accuracy of Nine New-Generation IOL Formulas in Long Eyes.
Purpose: To investigate the effect of capsular tension rings (CTRs) on the accuracy of nine new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in long eyes.
Methods: A total of 106 eyes (106 patients) with CTR (CTR group) and another 106 eyes (106 patients) without CTR (NCTR group) were analyzed. The differences in mean prediction error, standard deviation, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE), and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and greater than ±1.00 diopter (D) were compared.
Results: In the CTR group, only the Hoffer QST and VRF-G formulas showed significantly lower MedAE compared to the NCTR group. There was no statistically significant difference found among other formulas. The VRF-G and Hoffer QST formulas had lower MAE (0.351 to 0.367) than the Kane (0.469) (P < .05). The K6 and Pearl-DGS formulas had higher MAE (0.441 to 0.452) than the Zhu-Lu (0.351) and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0 (0.377) (P < .05). In the NCTR group, the Zhu-Lu and RBF 3.0 formulas had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.411) compared to the Kane (0.477) (P < .05). The Zhu-Lu and EVO 2.0 formulas also had lower MAE (0.340 to 0.363) than Pearl-DGS (0.429) (P < .05), and the EVO 2.0 had lower MedAE (0.273) than the Kane (0.433) (P < .05). The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D (76 to 85, 71.70% to 80.19%) of the RBF3.0, K6, EVO 2.0, and Zhu-Lu formulas were higher than Kane (53.77%) (P < .02).
Conclusions: CTR implantation does not improve the refractive prediction accuracy of the most new generation IOL formula. The Zhu-Lu formula is recommended for use in long eyes, regardless of CTR implantation. [J Refract Surg. 2025;41(2):e114-e119.].
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
