Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski
{"title":"20种长眼人工晶状体度数计算公式的精度比较。","authors":"Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski","doi":"10.1016/j.apjo.2025.100198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in long eyes (26.00-29.99 mm) DESIGN: Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis METHODS: The data of patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between August 2019 and July 2024 were reviewed. Pre-surgery IOL power was calculated using Haigis, Holladay 2, SRK/T and Barrett Universal II formulas. Three months after cataract surgery, refraction was measured. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Castrop, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Naeser 2, Olsen (standalone), PEARL-DGS, T2, VRF and VRF-G. Root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred fifty-three eyes with axial length ranging between 26.00 mm and 29.47 mm, were studied. The SRK/T formula yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.349) with statistical superiority over Holladay 1 (0.519, P = 0.000), Olsen (standalone) (0.505, P = 0.000) and Hoffer Q (0.497, P = 0.000). In terms of MedAE, the lowest outcome was obtained by VRF-G (0.256) followed by Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0 and LSF AI (all equally of 0.260). The highest percentage of eyes with prediction error within ± 0.50 D was achieved by SRK/T (84.97 %) statistically significant vs Holladay 1 (60.78 %), Hoffer Q (64.05 %) and Olsen(standalone) (68.63 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SRK/T has delivered highly accurate results in long eyes. Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0, VRF-G and LSF AI are also very true.</p>","PeriodicalId":8594,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"100198"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes.\",\"authors\":\"Wiktor Stopyra, Oleksiy Voytsekhivskyy, Andrzej Grzybowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apjo.2025.100198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in long eyes (26.00-29.99 mm) DESIGN: Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis METHODS: The data of patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between August 2019 and July 2024 were reviewed. Pre-surgery IOL power was calculated using Haigis, Holladay 2, SRK/T and Barrett Universal II formulas. Three months after cataract surgery, refraction was measured. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Castrop, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Naeser 2, Olsen (standalone), PEARL-DGS, T2, VRF and VRF-G. Root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred fifty-three eyes with axial length ranging between 26.00 mm and 29.47 mm, were studied. The SRK/T formula yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.349) with statistical superiority over Holladay 1 (0.519, P = 0.000), Olsen (standalone) (0.505, P = 0.000) and Hoffer Q (0.497, P = 0.000). In terms of MedAE, the lowest outcome was obtained by VRF-G (0.256) followed by Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0 and LSF AI (all equally of 0.260). The highest percentage of eyes with prediction error within ± 0.50 D was achieved by SRK/T (84.97 %) statistically significant vs Holladay 1 (60.78 %), Hoffer Q (64.05 %) and Olsen(standalone) (68.63 %).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SRK/T has delivered highly accurate results in long eyes. Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0, VRF-G and LSF AI are also very true.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjo.2025.100198\",\"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":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjo.2025.100198","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：比较20种长眼人工晶状体（IOL）度数计算公式（26.00-29.99 mm）的准确性设计：回顾性准确性和效度分析方法：回顾性分析2019年8月至2024年7月行超声乳化术的患者资料。术前人工晶状体度数采用Haigis、Holladay 2、SRK/T和Barrett Universal II公式计算。白内障手术后3个月，测量屈光。采用以下公式计算术后IOL晶晶体功率：Castrop、EVO 2.0、Hill-RBF 3.0、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、Hoffer QST、K6、Kane、Karmona、Ladas Super Formula AI （LSF AI）、Naeser 2、Olsen（独立）、PEARL-DGS、T2、VRF和VRF- g。计算均方根绝对误差（RMSAE）、中位数绝对误差（MedAE）和预测误差在± 0.25 D、± 0.50 D、± 0.75 D和± 1.00范围内的眼睛百分比（PE）。结果：观察眼轴长26.00 ~ 29.47 mm的153只眼。SRK/T公式的RMSAE最低，为0.349，优于Holladay 1 （0.519, P = 0.000）、Olsen (standalone) （0.505, P = 0.000）和Hoffer Q （0.497, P = 0.000）。在MedAE方面，VRF-G评分最低（0.256），其次是Barrett Universal II、Hill-RBF 3.0和LSF AI（均为0.260）。SRK/T预测误差在± 0.50 D内的眼睛比例最高（84.97 %），与Holladay 1（60.78 %）、Hoffer Q（64.05 %）和Olsen（独立）（68.63 %）相比具有统计学意义。结论：SRK/T在长眼患者中具有较高的准确性。Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0， VRF-G和LSF AI也非常真实。
Comparison of the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens power calculation formulas in long eyes.
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of twenty intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in long eyes (26.00-29.99 mm) DESIGN: Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis METHODS: The data of patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between August 2019 and July 2024 were reviewed. Pre-surgery IOL power was calculated using Haigis, Holladay 2, SRK/T and Barrett Universal II formulas. Three months after cataract surgery, refraction was measured. Post-surgery IOL power calculations were performed utilizing the following formulas: Castrop, EVO 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, Ladas Super Formula AI (LSF AI), Naeser 2, Olsen (standalone), PEARL-DGS, T2, VRF and VRF-G. Root mean square absolute error (RMSAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D and ± 1.00 were calculated.
Results: One hundred fifty-three eyes with axial length ranging between 26.00 mm and 29.47 mm, were studied. The SRK/T formula yielded the lowest RMSAE (0.349) with statistical superiority over Holladay 1 (0.519, P = 0.000), Olsen (standalone) (0.505, P = 0.000) and Hoffer Q (0.497, P = 0.000). In terms of MedAE, the lowest outcome was obtained by VRF-G (0.256) followed by Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0 and LSF AI (all equally of 0.260). The highest percentage of eyes with prediction error within ± 0.50 D was achieved by SRK/T (84.97 %) statistically significant vs Holladay 1 (60.78 %), Hoffer Q (64.05 %) and Olsen(standalone) (68.63 %).
Conclusions: SRK/T has delivered highly accurate results in long eyes. Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF 3.0, VRF-G and LSF AI are also very true.
期刊介绍：
The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, a bimonthly, peer-reviewed online scientific publication, is an official publication of the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology (APAO), a supranational organization which is committed to research, training, learning, publication and knowledge and skill transfers in ophthalmology and visual sciences. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology welcomes review articles on currently hot topics, original, previously unpublished manuscripts describing clinical investigations, clinical observations and clinically relevant laboratory investigations, as well as .perspectives containing personal viewpoints on topics with broad interests. Editorials are published by invitation only. Case reports are generally not considered. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology covers 16 subspecialties and is freely circulated among individual members of the APAO’s member societies, which amounts to a potential readership of over 50,000.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
