Silvia Ferrara , Alfonso Savastano , Emanuele Crincoli , Raphael Kilian , Maria Cristina Savastano , Stanislao Rizzo
{"title":"Comparison of IOL power formulas in eyes with a flat cornea <42 D","authors":"Silvia Ferrara , Alfonso Savastano , Emanuele Crincoli , Raphael Kilian , Maria Cristina Savastano , Stanislao Rizzo","doi":"10.1016/j.ajoint.2024.100026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess and compare accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation performed with old generation, new generation and artificial intelligence (AI)-based formulas in eyes with flat corneas.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Patients with a tomography-derived mean keratometry <42 D were retrospectively recruited among those who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with intracapsular IOL implantation in two different tertiary care centers. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute prediction error (MAE) and incidence of MAE>0.25D were calculated for Barrett Universal II (BUII),EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen-C, Pearl-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Linear correlation between MAE and axial length was also calculated for each formula.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighty (80) eyes with a mean keratometry of 41.4 ± 0.6 D (range 40.6–41.9 D) were recruited. The SRK/T significantly differed from both the Olsen-C (<em>p</em> = 0.022) and the BUII (<em>p</em> = 0.048) in ME. The EVO 2.0, the Hoffer QST, the Kane and the PEARL-DGS showed a significantly lower MAE compared to all other formulas (<em>p</em> < 0.001) and a significant lower incidence of MAE>0.25D (<em>p</em> < 0.001), MAE>0.50 D (<em>p</em> < 0.001) and MAE>1.0 D (0.002).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Formulas based on AI and on the theory of vergence show superior accuracy in IOL power calculation in corneas with low mean keratometry; their MAE is not correlated to axial length.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100071,"journal":{"name":"AJO International","volume":"1 2","pages":"Article 100026"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950253524000261/pdfft?md5=643788b2ada4ac26407a70d122216b5a&pid=1-s2.0-S2950253524000261-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJO International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950253524000261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
To assess and compare accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation performed with old generation, new generation and artificial intelligence (AI)-based formulas in eyes with flat corneas.
Design
Patients with a tomography-derived mean keratometry <42 D were retrospectively recruited among those who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification with intracapsular IOL implantation in two different tertiary care centers. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute prediction error (MAE) and incidence of MAE>0.25D were calculated for Barrett Universal II (BUII),EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen-C, Pearl-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Linear correlation between MAE and axial length was also calculated for each formula.
Results
Eighty (80) eyes with a mean keratometry of 41.4 ± 0.6 D (range 40.6–41.9 D) were recruited. The SRK/T significantly differed from both the Olsen-C (p = 0.022) and the BUII (p = 0.048) in ME. The EVO 2.0, the Hoffer QST, the Kane and the PEARL-DGS showed a significantly lower MAE compared to all other formulas (p < 0.001) and a significant lower incidence of MAE>0.25D (p < 0.001), MAE>0.50 D (p < 0.001) and MAE>1.0 D (0.002).
Conclusion
Formulas based on AI and on the theory of vergence show superior accuracy in IOL power calculation in corneas with low mean keratometry; their MAE is not correlated to axial length.