Cargando…

Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths

PURPOSE: To compare the measurement accuracy of new/updated intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods, namely, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), with existing methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T) in Chinese eyes with axial lengths ≤ 22.5 mm. METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Yueting, Lin, Yongdong, Li, Yuancun, Hu, Zhuoyi, Qiu, Kunliang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37881634
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1257873
_version_ 1785125401748570112
author Ma, Yueting
Lin, Yongdong
Li, Yuancun
Hu, Zhuoyi
Qiu, Kunliang
author_facet Ma, Yueting
Lin, Yongdong
Li, Yuancun
Hu, Zhuoyi
Qiu, Kunliang
author_sort Ma, Yueting
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the measurement accuracy of new/updated intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods, namely, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), with existing methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T) in Chinese eyes with axial lengths ≤ 22.5 mm. METHODS: The study included data from patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with the insertion of ZCB00 IOL. Refractive prediction errors were determined by calculating the difference between postoperative refraction and the predicted refraction using each formula. Various parameters were evaluated, including mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within different ranges. RESULTS: The study enrolled 38 eyes of 38 patients, and the Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAE and MedAE among the tested formulas. Post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank pairwise comparisons for non-parametric samples with Bonferroni correction revealed no significant difference in postoperative refractive prediction among all the formulas (P > 0.05). The percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D was as follows: Barrett Universal II, 81.58%; Haigis, 78.95%; EVO, 76.32%; Olsen, 76.32%; Holladay I, 73.68%; SRK/T, 71.05%; Kane, 68.42%; and Hoffer Q, 65.79%. CONCLUSION: The Barrett Universal II formula was more accurate than the other formulas for Chinese eyes with AL ≤ 22.5 mm.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10597710
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105977102023-10-25 Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths Ma, Yueting Lin, Yongdong Li, Yuancun Hu, Zhuoyi Qiu, Kunliang Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine PURPOSE: To compare the measurement accuracy of new/updated intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods, namely, Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), with existing methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T) in Chinese eyes with axial lengths ≤ 22.5 mm. METHODS: The study included data from patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery with the insertion of ZCB00 IOL. Refractive prediction errors were determined by calculating the difference between postoperative refraction and the predicted refraction using each formula. Various parameters were evaluated, including mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors (PE) within different ranges. RESULTS: The study enrolled 38 eyes of 38 patients, and the Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAE and MedAE among the tested formulas. Post hoc analysis using Wilcoxon signed-rank pairwise comparisons for non-parametric samples with Bonferroni correction revealed no significant difference in postoperative refractive prediction among all the formulas (P > 0.05). The percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D was as follows: Barrett Universal II, 81.58%; Haigis, 78.95%; EVO, 76.32%; Olsen, 76.32%; Holladay I, 73.68%; SRK/T, 71.05%; Kane, 68.42%; and Hoffer Q, 65.79%. CONCLUSION: The Barrett Universal II formula was more accurate than the other formulas for Chinese eyes with AL ≤ 22.5 mm. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10597710/ /pubmed/37881634 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1257873 Text en Copyright © 2023 Ma, Lin, Li, Hu and Qiu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Ma, Yueting
Lin, Yongdong
Li, Yuancun
Hu, Zhuoyi
Qiu, Kunliang
Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title_full Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title_fullStr Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title_short Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with short axial lengths
title_sort accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in chinese eyes with short axial lengths
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597710/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37881634
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1257873
work_keys_str_mv AT mayueting accuracyofnewintraocularlenscalculationformulasinchineseeyeswithshortaxiallengths
AT linyongdong accuracyofnewintraocularlenscalculationformulasinchineseeyeswithshortaxiallengths
AT liyuancun accuracyofnewintraocularlenscalculationformulasinchineseeyeswithshortaxiallengths
AT huzhuoyi accuracyofnewintraocularlenscalculationformulasinchineseeyeswithshortaxiallengths
AT qiukunliang accuracyofnewintraocularlenscalculationformulasinchineseeyeswithshortaxiallengths