Yongdong Lin, Yanlin Yin, Chukai Huang, Tsz Kin Ng, Kunliang Qiu, Yueting Ma, Di Ma
{"title":"新型人工晶状体计算公式在原发性闭角型青光眼超声乳化联合晶状体协同分析中的准确性。","authors":"Yongdong Lin, Yanlin Yin, Chukai Huang, Tsz Kin Ng, Kunliang Qiu, Yueting Ma, Di Ma","doi":"10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14473,"journal":{"name":"International Ophthalmology","volume":"45 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yongdong Lin, Yanlin Yin, Chukai Huang, Tsz Kin Ng, Kunliang Qiu, Yueting Ma, Di Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4\",\"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":"International Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis.
Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).
Methods: Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.
Results: A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.
期刊介绍：
International Ophthalmology provides the clinician with articles on all the relevant subspecialties of ophthalmology, with a broad international scope. The emphasis is on presentation of the latest clinical research in the field. In addition, the journal includes regular sections devoted to new developments in technologies, products, and techniques.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
