使用 9 公式预测眼内透镜功率的准确性

Kyung Wook Kim, Kayoung Yi, Young Joo Shin
{"title":"使用 9 公式预测眼内透镜功率的准确性","authors":"Kyung Wook Kim, Kayoung Yi, Young Joo Shin","doi":"10.3341/jkos.2024.65.1.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas.Methods: This study is retrospective consecutive case series. A total of 228 eyes of 228 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery between October 2015 and March 2021 were included. The accuracy of nine IOL calculation formulas (Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical version, Hill-radial basis function, Olsen, Barrett Universal II [Barrett II], Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer, and SRK/T) was compared and analyzed using differences between the predicted refractive power and actual refractive power at 2 months after cataract surgery. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes that were within ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D of the target refraction were calculated for each formula.Results: For all eyes, Haigis formula was the most accurate in MAE, followed by Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, Haigis formula showed the highest accuracy. A total of 20 eyes of 20 patients had more than 25 mm axial length. Regarding MAE, Hoffer Q was the most accurate, followed by the Olsen formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, the Hoffer Q formula was the most accurate. A total of 24 eyes of 24 patients had more than 46 D keratometry. Regarding MAE and MedAE, Haigis was the most accurate, followed by the Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.5 D, Holladay formula was the most accurate.Conclusions: Barrett II and Haigis formulas showed greater accuracy for all patients when we determined IOL power before cataract surgery. Hoffer Q, Olsen, and Barrett II formulas showed higher accuracy for long axial length. And Haigis and Barrett II were the most accurate for steep keratometry.","PeriodicalId":17341,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The Korean Ophthalmological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Using 9 Formula\",\"authors\":\"Kyung Wook Kim, Kayoung Yi, Young Joo Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.3341/jkos.2024.65.1.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas.Methods: This study is retrospective consecutive case series. A total of 228 eyes of 228 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery between October 2015 and March 2021 were included. The accuracy of nine IOL calculation formulas (Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical version, Hill-radial basis function, Olsen, Barrett Universal II [Barrett II], Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer, and SRK/T) was compared and analyzed using differences between the predicted refractive power and actual refractive power at 2 months after cataract surgery. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes that were within ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D of the target refraction were calculated for each formula.Results: For all eyes, Haigis formula was the most accurate in MAE, followed by Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, Haigis formula showed the highest accuracy. A total of 20 eyes of 20 patients had more than 25 mm axial length. Regarding MAE, Hoffer Q was the most accurate, followed by the Olsen formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, the Hoffer Q formula was the most accurate. A total of 24 eyes of 24 patients had more than 46 D keratometry. Regarding MAE and MedAE, Haigis was the most accurate, followed by the Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.5 D, Holladay formula was the most accurate.Conclusions: Barrett II and Haigis formulas showed greater accuracy for all patients when we determined IOL power before cataract surgery. Hoffer Q, Olsen, and Barrett II formulas showed higher accuracy for long axial length. And Haigis and Barrett II were the most accurate for steep keratometry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of The Korean Ophthalmological Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of The Korean Ophthalmological Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2024.65.1.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The Korean Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2024.65.1.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较九种眼内晶状体(IOL)功率计算公式的准确性:本研究为回顾性连续病例系列。共纳入 2015 年 10 月至 2021 年 3 月期间接受无并发症白内障手术的 228 名患者的 228 只眼睛。通过白内障手术后 2 个月的预测屈光力与实际屈光力之间的差异,比较和分析了九种人工晶体计算公式(Kane、Emmetropia 验证光学版本、Hill-径向基础函数、Olsen、Barrett Universal II [Barrett II]、Haigis、Holladay、Hoffer 和 SRK/T)的准确性。计算了每种公式的平均预测误差 (ME)、平均绝对误差 (MAE)、中位数绝对误差 (MedAE) 以及目标屈光度在 ± 0.50 度 (D)、± 0.75 度 (D) 和 ± 1.00 度 (D) 范围内的眼的百分比:对于所有眼睛,海吉斯公式的 MAE 最准确,其次是巴雷特 II 公式。比较 0.50 D 以内的 MAE 概率,海吉斯公式的准确度最高。20 名患者中共有 20 只眼睛的轴长超过 25 mm。在 MAE 方面,Hoffer Q 最准确,其次是 Olsen 公式。比较 0.50 D 以内的 MAE 概率,Hoffer Q 公式最为准确。24 名患者中共有 24 只眼睛的角膜度数超过 46 D。关于 MAE 和 MedAE,Haigis 最准确,其次是 Barrett II 公式。比较 0.5 D 以内的 MAE 概率,霍拉迪公式最为准确:结论:在白内障手术前确定人工晶体力时,Barrett II 公式和 Haigis 公式对所有患者都更准确。Hoffer Q、Olsen 和 Barrett II 公式对长轴向长度的准确性更高。海吉斯公式和巴雷特 II 公式对陡峭角膜测量的准确度最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Using 9 Formula
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas.Methods: This study is retrospective consecutive case series. A total of 228 eyes of 228 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery between October 2015 and March 2021 were included. The accuracy of nine IOL calculation formulas (Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical version, Hill-radial basis function, Olsen, Barrett Universal II [Barrett II], Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer, and SRK/T) was compared and analyzed using differences between the predicted refractive power and actual refractive power at 2 months after cataract surgery. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes that were within ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 0.75 D, and ± 1.00 D of the target refraction were calculated for each formula.Results: For all eyes, Haigis formula was the most accurate in MAE, followed by Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, Haigis formula showed the highest accuracy. A total of 20 eyes of 20 patients had more than 25 mm axial length. Regarding MAE, Hoffer Q was the most accurate, followed by the Olsen formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.50 D, the Hoffer Q formula was the most accurate. A total of 24 eyes of 24 patients had more than 46 D keratometry. Regarding MAE and MedAE, Haigis was the most accurate, followed by the Barrett II formula. Comparing the probability of MAE within 0.5 D, Holladay formula was the most accurate.Conclusions: Barrett II and Haigis formulas showed greater accuracy for all patients when we determined IOL power before cataract surgery. Hoffer Q, Olsen, and Barrett II formulas showed higher accuracy for long axial length. And Haigis and Barrett II were the most accurate for steep keratometry.
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
126
期刊最新文献
Self-assessment of Visual Acuity Using a Smartphone Application The Diagnosis and Treatment of a Post-traumatic Iris Cyst Referred as an Iris Tumor Clinical Results of Prosthetic Eye Wear in Patients with Congenital Microphthalmos Two Cases of Ischemic Optic Neuropathy after Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Injection Frequency and Differences in Visual Outcomes based on Diagnosis Year in Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration
×
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