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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yesilkaya, Elif Ceren, Garip, Ruveyde
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