Cargando…
Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts
Introduction To compare the prediction accuracy of lens power calculation formulas in patients undergoing mature cataract surgery. Methods A total of 90 operations involving the Alcon SA60AT IOL implant (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) were analyzed in terms of mean refractive prediction error (PE) and...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10644268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38021815 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47053 |
_version_ | 1785134513138958336 |
---|---|
author | Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren Garip, Ruveyde |
author_facet | Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren Garip, Ruveyde |
author_sort | Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction To compare the prediction accuracy of lens power calculation formulas in patients undergoing mature cataract surgery. Methods A total of 90 operations involving the Alcon SA60AT IOL implant (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) were analyzed in terms of mean refractive prediction error (PE) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) using backward calculation in a retrospective design. Results A negative PE was observed in SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formulas. In contrast, positive PEs were observed in Barrett Universal II (BAUII), Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) formulas. Negative PE was observed with all formulas, except BAUII, in patients with a shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). While the SRK/T, Holladay 1, BAU, Kane, and RBF formulas demonstrated positive PE, the Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and EVO formulas indicated negative PE. In patients with deep ACD, positive PE was observed in all formulas, barring Holladay 2 and EVO. No significant differences were identified between the formulas concerning MAE and percentages of 0.25 diopter (D), 0.50 D, 0.75 D, and 1.0 D across all study groups. Conclusion Although the new generation formulas provide very good results, achieving the best with a single formula is still impossible. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10644268 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106442682023-10-15 Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren Garip, Ruveyde Cureus Ophthalmology Introduction To compare the prediction accuracy of lens power calculation formulas in patients undergoing mature cataract surgery. Methods A total of 90 operations involving the Alcon SA60AT IOL implant (Alcon, Geneva, Switzerland) were analyzed in terms of mean refractive prediction error (PE) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) using backward calculation in a retrospective design. Results A negative PE was observed in SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formulas. In contrast, positive PEs were observed in Barrett Universal II (BAUII), Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) formulas. Negative PE was observed with all formulas, except BAUII, in patients with a shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD). While the SRK/T, Holladay 1, BAU, Kane, and RBF formulas demonstrated positive PE, the Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and EVO formulas indicated negative PE. In patients with deep ACD, positive PE was observed in all formulas, barring Holladay 2 and EVO. No significant differences were identified between the formulas concerning MAE and percentages of 0.25 diopter (D), 0.50 D, 0.75 D, and 1.0 D across all study groups. Conclusion Although the new generation formulas provide very good results, achieving the best with a single formula is still impossible. Cureus 2023-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10644268/ /pubmed/38021815 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47053 Text en Copyright © 2023, Yesilkaya et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Ophthalmology Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren Garip, Ruveyde Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title | Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title_full | Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title_short | Accuracy of Different Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Patients With Mature Cataracts |
title_sort | accuracy of different lens power calculation formulas in patients with mature cataracts |
topic | Ophthalmology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10644268/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38021815 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47053 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yesilkayaelifceren accuracyofdifferentlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithmaturecataracts AT garipruveyde accuracyofdifferentlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithmaturecataracts |