评估人工晶状体度数计算中四种生物测量设备的角膜测量结果的互换性:对五种现代人工晶体公式预测准确性的见解。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Shan Ma, Cheng Li, Jing Sun, Jun Yang, Kai Wen, Xiteng Chen, Fangyu Zhao, Xuequan Sun, Fang Tian
{"title":"评估人工晶状体度数计算中四种生物测量设备的角膜测量结果的互换性:对五种现代人工晶体公式预测准确性的见解。","authors":"Shan Ma, Cheng Li, Jing Sun, Jun Yang, Kai Wen, Xiteng Chen, Fangyu Zhao, Xuequan Sun, Fang Tian","doi":"10.1186/s12886-025-04067-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Achieving accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is crucial for successful refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the interchangeability of keratometry (K) values obtained from four biometric devices (IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, Pentacam, and iTrace) and assess the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and PEARL-DGS) when using K values from these different devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study included K values obtained from four biometric devices for use in five IOL power calculation formulas. Predictive accuracy was assessed using multiple statistical parameters, including standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE). The interchangeability of devices was evaluated by comparing predictive outcomes across devices and formulas, with statistical analyses focusing on consistency and agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Predictive accuracy across the five IOL formulas was stable and showed no statistically significant differences when using keratometry measurements from the same biometric device. However, significant variability was noted when comparing K values from different devices using the same formula. The SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) showed higher consistency in predictive accuracy compared to Scheimpflug-based Pentacam and ray-tracing-based iTrace. Despite this inter-device variability, all five IOL formulas showed overall robust performance across different devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that keratometry measurements from different biometric devices are not fully interchangeable. SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) provided superior consistency in refractive prediction accuracy. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select biometric device-formula combinations based on the specific measurement principles and desired refractive outcomes. Further research involving larger sample sizes, additional IOL types and biometric devices, as well as assessment of surgeon-related factors, is warranted to optimize refractive accuracy in cataract surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":9058,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ophthalmology","volume":"25 1","pages":"236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016114/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the interchangeability of keratometry measurements from four biometric devices in intraocular lens power calculations: insights into the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL formulas.\",\"authors\":\"Shan Ma, Cheng Li, Jing Sun, Jun Yang, Kai Wen, Xiteng Chen, Fangyu Zhao, Xuequan Sun, Fang Tian\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12886-025-04067-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Achieving accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is crucial for successful refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the interchangeability of keratometry (K) values obtained from four biometric devices (IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, Pentacam, and iTrace) and assess the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and PEARL-DGS) when using K values from these different devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study included K values obtained from four biometric devices for use in five IOL power calculation formulas. Predictive accuracy was assessed using multiple statistical parameters, including standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE). The interchangeability of devices was evaluated by comparing predictive outcomes across devices and formulas, with statistical analyses focusing on consistency and agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Predictive accuracy across the five IOL formulas was stable and showed no statistically significant differences when using keratometry measurements from the same biometric device. However, significant variability was noted when comparing K values from different devices using the same formula. The SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) showed higher consistency in predictive accuracy compared to Scheimpflug-based Pentacam and ray-tracing-based iTrace. Despite this inter-device variability, all five IOL formulas showed overall robust performance across different devices.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate that keratometry measurements from different biometric devices are not fully interchangeable. SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) provided superior consistency in refractive prediction accuracy. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select biometric device-formula combinations based on the specific measurement principles and desired refractive outcomes. Further research involving larger sample sizes, additional IOL types and biometric devices, as well as assessment of surgeon-related factors, is warranted to optimize refractive accuracy in cataract surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016114/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-04067-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-025-04067-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:准确计算人工晶状体(IOL)度数对白内障手术屈光效果的成功至关重要。本研究旨在评估四种生物识别设备(IOLMaster 700、CASIA2、Pentacam和iTrace)获得的角膜测量(K)值的互换性,并评估五种现代IOL计算公式(Barrett Universal II、Cooke K6、EVO 2.0、Kane和PEARL-DGS)在使用这些不同设备的K值时的预测准确性。方法:本前瞻性研究包括从四种生物识别装置获得的K值,用于五种人工晶状体度数计算公式。使用多个统计参数评估预测准确性,包括标准差(SD)、平均绝对误差(MAE)、中位数绝对误差(MedAE)和均方根绝对误差(RMSAE)。通过比较不同设备和公式的预测结果来评估设备的互换性,统计分析侧重于一致性和一致性。结果:五种IOL配方的预测准确性是稳定的,当使用同一生物识别设备的角膜测量值时,没有统计学上的显著差异。然而,当使用相同公式比较不同设备的K值时,注意到显著的可变性。与基于scheimpflug的Pentacam和基于射线追踪的iTrace相比,基于ss - oct的设备(IOLMaster 700和CASIA2)在预测精度上具有更高的一致性。尽管存在这种设备间的差异,但所有五种IOL配方在不同设备上均表现出总体稳健的性能。结论:我们的研究结果表明,不同生物识别设备的角膜测量结果不能完全互换。基于ss - oct的器件(IOLMaster 700和CASIA2)在折光预测精度方面提供了优越的一致性。因此,临床医生应根据具体的测量原则和期望的屈光结果仔细选择生物识别设备-配方组合。进一步的研究包括更大的样本量,更多的人工晶状体类型和生物识别设备,以及手术相关因素的评估,有必要优化白内障手术的屈光精度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the interchangeability of keratometry measurements from four biometric devices in intraocular lens power calculations: insights into the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL formulas.

Background: Achieving accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is crucial for successful refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the interchangeability of keratometry (K) values obtained from four biometric devices (IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, Pentacam, and iTrace) and assess the predictive accuracy of five modern IOL calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and PEARL-DGS) when using K values from these different devices.

Methods: This prospective study included K values obtained from four biometric devices for use in five IOL power calculation formulas. Predictive accuracy was assessed using multiple statistical parameters, including standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE). The interchangeability of devices was evaluated by comparing predictive outcomes across devices and formulas, with statistical analyses focusing on consistency and agreement.

Results: Predictive accuracy across the five IOL formulas was stable and showed no statistically significant differences when using keratometry measurements from the same biometric device. However, significant variability was noted when comparing K values from different devices using the same formula. The SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) showed higher consistency in predictive accuracy compared to Scheimpflug-based Pentacam and ray-tracing-based iTrace. Despite this inter-device variability, all five IOL formulas showed overall robust performance across different devices.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate that keratometry measurements from different biometric devices are not fully interchangeable. SS-OCT-based devices (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) provided superior consistency in refractive prediction accuracy. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select biometric device-formula combinations based on the specific measurement principles and desired refractive outcomes. Further research involving larger sample sizes, additional IOL types and biometric devices, as well as assessment of surgeon-related factors, is warranted to optimize refractive accuracy in cataract surgery.

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
BMC Ophthalmology
BMC Ophthalmology OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
441
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Ophthalmology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of eye disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
×
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