微球晶状体患者人工晶状体度数计算的准确性:7种公式的比较。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Ophthalmic Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-31 DOI:10.1159/000545050
Yang Sun, Tianhui Chen, Zexu Chen, Wannan Jia, Zhennan Zhao, Yongxiang Jiang
{"title":"微球晶状体患者人工晶状体度数计算的准确性:7种公式的比较。","authors":"Yang Sun, Tianhui Chen, Zexu Chen, Wannan Jia, Zhennan Zhao, Yongxiang Jiang","doi":"10.1159/000545050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of seven formulas for intraocular lens power calculation in patients with microspherophakia (MSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective case series included 44 eyes from 28 patients with MSP. The mean prediction error (PE) was calculated, and the accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D. Depending on whether the patients had Marfan syndrome (MFS), MSP patients 36 were sub-divided into MFS and non-MFS group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the non-MFS subgroup, the performance of formulas ranked by FPI from highest to lowest was BUII, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, Haigis, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q. In the MFS subgroup, Kane achieved the best accuracy regarding the lowest MedAE and the largest percentage of PE in the range of ±0.50 D. Similar results were obtained in eyes with shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). In the regular ACD subgroup, the EVO provided the highest prediction accuracy and SRK/T took the second place. In the deep ACD subgroup, Holladay 1 performed superiorly presenting the lowest standard deviation values, mean absolute error and MedAE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, new generation formulas showed a better trend of refractive outcomes in MSP patients. The Holladay 1 formula was suggested for eyes with deep ACD, while Haigis was not recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":19662,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic Research","volume":" ","pages":"237-251"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Microspherophakia Patients: Comparison of 7 Formulas.\",\"authors\":\"Yang Sun, Tianhui Chen, Zexu Chen, Wannan Jia, Zhennan Zhao, Yongxiang Jiang\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000545050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of seven formulas for intraocular lens power calculation in patients with microspherophakia (MSP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective case series included 44 eyes from 28 patients with MSP. The mean prediction error (PE) was calculated, and the accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D. Depending on whether the patients had Marfan syndrome (MFS), MSP patients 36 were sub-divided into MFS and non-MFS group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the non-MFS subgroup, the performance of formulas ranked by FPI from highest to lowest was BUII, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, Haigis, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q. In the MFS subgroup, Kane achieved the best accuracy regarding the lowest MedAE and the largest percentage of PE in the range of ±0.50 D. Similar results were obtained in eyes with shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). In the regular ACD subgroup, the EVO provided the highest prediction accuracy and SRK/T took the second place. In the deep ACD subgroup, Holladay 1 performed superiorly presenting the lowest standard deviation values, mean absolute error and MedAE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, new generation formulas showed a better trend of refractive outcomes in MSP patients. The Holladay 1 formula was suggested for eyes with deep ACD, while Haigis was not recommended.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmic Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"237-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmic Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545050\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000545050","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:比较7种人工晶状体(IOL)度数计算公式在微球晶状体(MSP)患者中的准确性。方法:回顾性分析28例MSP患者的44只眼。计算平均预测误差(PE),并通过公式性能指数(FPI)、中位绝对误差(MedAE)和预测误差在±0.25屈光度(D)、±0.50 D、±0.75 D和±1.00 D内的眼睛百分比来确定准确性。根据患者是否患有马凡综合征(MFS),将36例MSP患者细分为MFS组和非MFS组。结果:在非MFS亚组中,按FPI由高到低排列的公式的性能依次为BUII、EVO、Kane、Haigis、SRK/T、Holladay 1和Hoffer Q.在MFS亚组中,Kane在±0.50 d范围内的最低MedAE和最大PE百分比的准确性最好,浅ACD的眼睛也获得了类似的结果。在常规ACD亚组中,EVO预测准确率最高,SRK/T次之。在深度ACD亚组中,Holladay 1表现较好,SD值、MAE和MedAE最低。结论:总体而言,新一代配方在MSP患者屈光预后方面表现出更好的趋势。深ACD眼推荐使用Holladay 1配方,不推荐使用Haigis配方。
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 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Microspherophakia Patients: Comparison of 7 Formulas.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of seven formulas for intraocular lens power calculation in patients with microspherophakia (MSP).

Methods: A retrospective case series included 44 eyes from 28 patients with MSP. The mean prediction error (PE) was calculated, and the accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE), and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D. Depending on whether the patients had Marfan syndrome (MFS), MSP patients 36 were sub-divided into MFS and non-MFS group.

Results: In the non-MFS subgroup, the performance of formulas ranked by FPI from highest to lowest was BUII, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, Haigis, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q. In the MFS subgroup, Kane achieved the best accuracy regarding the lowest MedAE and the largest percentage of PE in the range of ±0.50 D. Similar results were obtained in eyes with shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). In the regular ACD subgroup, the EVO provided the highest prediction accuracy and SRK/T took the second place. In the deep ACD subgroup, Holladay 1 performed superiorly presenting the lowest standard deviation values, mean absolute error and MedAE.

Conclusions: Overall, new generation formulas showed a better trend of refractive outcomes in MSP patients. The Holladay 1 formula was suggested for eyes with deep ACD, while Haigis was not recommended.

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
Ophthalmic Research
Ophthalmic Research 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.80%
发文量
75
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Ophthalmic Research'' features original papers and reviews reporting on translational and clinical studies. Authors from throughout the world cover research topics on every field in connection with physical, physiologic, pharmacological, biochemical and molecular biological aspects of ophthalmology. This journal also aims to provide a record of international clinical research for both researchers and clinicians in ophthalmology. Finally, the transfer of information from fundamental research to clinical research and clinical practice is particularly welcome.
×
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