Precisión de fórmulas para cálculo de LIO en pacientes con queratometrías promedio mayores de 46 dioptrías

{"title":"Precisión de fórmulas para cálculo de LIO en pacientes con queratometrías promedio mayores de 46 dioptrías","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.oftal.2024.05.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the accuracy of Kane, Barrett Universal<!--> <!-->II, Haigis, and SRK-T formulas in eyes with average keratometry greater than 46 diopters (D).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eyes of 101 patients with average keratometry greater than 46<!--> <!-->D. The absolute prediction error (EA) was obtained for each patient one month after surgery. The mean absolute prediction error (MEA), median absolute prediction error (MedEA) and the percentage of patients with absolute refractive error less than 0.25<!--> <!-->D, 0.50<!--> <!-->D, and 1.00<!--> <!-->D were calculated for each formula analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The Kane formula achieved the lowest MEA (0.53<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.43) and the lowest MedEA (0.41), followed by Barrett Universal<!--> <!-->II (MEA: 0.56<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.42, MedEA: 0.49), SRK-T (MEA: 0.59<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.44, MedEA: 0.54), and Haigis (MEA: 0.77<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->0.47, MedEA: 0.69), showing a significant difference in the results. It was also observed that the Kane formula was the most accurate, with the highest percentage of patients, with EA less than 0.25<!--> <!-->D, 0.50<!--> <!-->D, and 1.00<!--> <!-->D (30.7%, 54.4%, and 86.1%, respectively), while the Haigis formula was the least accurate (12.9%, 33.7%, and 69.3%, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In eyes with corneas having average keratometry greater than 46<!--> <!-->D, the Kane formula proves to be a useful tool in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and demonstrates higher precision compared to the Barrett Universal<!--> <!-->II, SRK-T, and Haigis formulas.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8348,"journal":{"name":"Archivos De La Sociedad Espanola De Oftalmologia","volume":"99 10","pages":"Pages 413-419"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos De La Sociedad Espanola De Oftalmologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0365669124000881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare the accuracy of Kane, Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and SRK-T formulas in eyes with average keratometry greater than 46 diopters (D).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 101 eyes of 101 patients with average keratometry greater than 46 D. The absolute prediction error (EA) was obtained for each patient one month after surgery. The mean absolute prediction error (MEA), median absolute prediction error (MedEA) and the percentage of patients with absolute refractive error less than 0.25 D, 0.50 D, and 1.00 D were calculated for each formula analyzed.

Results

The Kane formula achieved the lowest MEA (0.53 ± 0.43) and the lowest MedEA (0.41), followed by Barrett Universal II (MEA: 0.56 ± 0.42, MedEA: 0.49), SRK-T (MEA: 0.59 ± 0.44, MedEA: 0.54), and Haigis (MEA: 0.77 ± 0.47, MedEA: 0.69), showing a significant difference in the results. It was also observed that the Kane formula was the most accurate, with the highest percentage of patients, with EA less than 0.25 D, 0.50 D, and 1.00 D (30.7%, 54.4%, and 86.1%, respectively), while the Haigis formula was the least accurate (12.9%, 33.7%, and 69.3%, respectively).

Conclusion

In eyes with corneas having average keratometry greater than 46 D, the Kane formula proves to be a useful tool in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and demonstrates higher precision compared to the Barrett Universal II, SRK-T, and Haigis formulas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平均角膜度数大于 46 度的患者人工晶体计算公式的准确性。
方法对平均角膜屈光度大于 46 D 的 101 名患者的 101 只眼睛进行回顾性分析,获得每位患者术后一个月的绝对预测误差 (EA)。计算所分析的每种公式的平均绝对预测误差 (MEA)、中位数绝对预测误差 (MedEA) 以及绝对屈光误差小于 0.25 D、0.50 D 和 1.00 D 的患者比例。53±0.43)和最低的 MedEA(0.41),其次是 Barrett Universal II(MEA:0.56±0.42,MedEA:0.49)、SRK-T(MEA:0.59±0.44,MedEA:0.54)和 Haigis(MEA:0.77±0.47,MedEA:0.69),结果显示差异显著。还观察到凯恩公式最准确,EA 小于 0.25 D、0.50 D 和 1.00 D 的患者比例最高(分别为 30.7%、54.4% 和 86.1%),而海吉斯公式最不准确(分别为 12.9%、33.7% 和 69.3%)。结论在角膜平均角膜曲率大于 46 D 的眼睛中,Kane 公式被证明是眼内晶状体 (IOL) 功率计算的有用工具,与 Barrett Universal II、SRK-T 和 Haigis 公式相比具有更高的精确度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
78 days
期刊介绍: La revista Archivos de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología, editada mensualmente por la propia Sociedad, tiene como objetivo publicar trabajos de investigación básica y clínica como artículos originales; casos clínicos, innovaciones técnicas y correlaciones clinicopatológicas en forma de comunicaciones cortas; editoriales; revisiones; cartas al editor; comentarios de libros; información de eventos; noticias personales y anuncios comerciales, así como trabajos de temas históricos y motivos inconográficos relacionados con la Oftalmología. El título abreviado es Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol, y debe ser utilizado en bibliografías, notas a pie de página y referencias bibliográficas.
期刊最新文献
Síndrome de isquemia ocular tras tratamiento estético con ácido hialurónico Metotrexato intralesional y nuevos abordajes para la neoadyuvancia en el carcinoma escamoso cutaneo periocular Resultados a largo plazo del tratamiento de los pacientes con degeneración macular asociada a la edad exudativa durante la pandemia por COVID-19 Melanoma de cuerpo ciliar: imagen multimodal Dehiscencia de suturas en pacientes con enfermedad del tejido conectivo: síndromes de Marfan y Weill-Marchesani
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1