六种现代人工晶状体屈光力计算公式的精度比较。

Q3 Medicine
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-10 DOI:10.3341/kjo.2023.0034
Ji Hyun Yoon, Woong-Joo Whang
{"title":"六种现代人工晶状体屈光力计算公式的精度比较。","authors":"Ji Hyun Yoon,&nbsp;Woong-Joo Whang","doi":"10.3341/kjo.2023.0034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.</p>","PeriodicalId":17883,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","volume":" ","pages":"380-386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/75/97/kjo-2023-0034.PMC10587458.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.\",\"authors\":\"Ji Hyun Yoon,&nbsp;Woong-Joo Whang\",\"doi\":\"10.3341/kjo.2023.0034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"380-386\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/75/97/kjo-2023-0034.PMC10587458.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2023.0034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2023.0034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较现代人工晶状体度数计算公式在预测标准白内障手术后屈光结果方面的准确性。方法:回顾性分析203例203眼白内障超声乳化人工晶状体植入术的临床资料。部分相干干涉测量法用于获得生物特征值。评估了Barrett Universal II(BUII)、Emmetropia Verifying Optical(EVO)2.0、Hill RBF 3.0、Hoffer QST、Kane和PEARL-DGS公式的屈光结果。轴向长度(AL)亚组分析分别进行。还分析了各公式计算的预测误差与AL和角膜屈光度之间的相关性。结果:总体而言,调整平均预测误差后,六个公式预测的绝对预测误差之间没有显著差异(p=0.058)。绝对误差的AL亚组分析也表明,这六个公式之间没有显著差别。BUII和Hill RBF 3.0公式显示,与Hoffer QST公式相比,预测误差在±0.50屈光度以内的眼睛比例更高(分别为p=0.022和p=0.035)。然而,应用Bonferroni校正后没有显著差异。BUII公式显示出最高的IOL公式性能指数,因此精度最高,其次是PEARL-DGS、EVO 2.0、Kane、Hill RBF 3.0和Hoffer QST公式。在6个公式中,Hoffer QST计算的预测误差与AL显著相关(p=0.011)。6个公式计算的预测错误均与角膜屈光度无关。结论:对预测误差的分析表明,六个现代人工晶状体屈光力计算公式在不同AL范围内具有可比的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.

Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.

Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.

Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.

Methods: The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.

Results: Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.

Conclusions: Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.

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
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO Medicine-Ophthalmology
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
84
×
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