Cargando…

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack

BACKGROUND: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Na Hyun, Gim, Yujin, Choi, Kyu-Ryong, Suh, Wool, Jun, Roo Min, Han, Kyung Eun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10675974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5
_version_ 1785149889086226432
author Kim, Na Hyun
Gim, Yujin
Choi, Kyu-Ryong
Suh, Wool
Jun, Roo Min
Han, Kyung Eun
author_facet Kim, Na Hyun
Gim, Yujin
Choi, Kyu-Ryong
Suh, Wool
Jun, Roo Min
Han, Kyung Eun
author_sort Kim, Na Hyun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. RESULTS: In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group. CONCLUSIONS: Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10675974
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106759742023-11-24 Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack Kim, Na Hyun Gim, Yujin Choi, Kyu-Ryong Suh, Wool Jun, Roo Min Han, Kyung Eun BMC Ophthalmol Research BACKGROUND: To compare the accuracy of nine intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, including three traditional formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q) and six new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF] 3.0, Kane, Emmetropia verifying optical [EVO], Ladas Super, and Pearl-DGS) in patients who underwent cataract surgery after acute primary angle closure (APAC). METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 44 eyes of 44 patients (APAC) and 60 eyes of 60 patients (control) were included. We compared the mean absolute error, median absolute error (MedAE), and prediction error after surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed on whether axial length (AL) or preoperative laser peripheral iridotomy affected the postoperative refractive outcomes. RESULTS: In the APAC group, all formulas showed higher MedAE and more myopic shift than the control group (all P < 0.05). In APAC eyes with AL ≥ 22 mm, there were no differences in MedAEs according to the IOL formulas; however, in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm, Haigis (0.49 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D) (P = 0.036) and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D) showed lower MedAE than SRK/T (0.82 D), Hoffer Q (0.75 D) or Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045, 0.036 and 0.027, respectively). Pearl-DGS (0.63 D) showed lower MedAE than Hoffer Q (0.75 D) and Kane (0.83 D) (P = 0.045 and 0.036, respectively). Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed the highest percentage (46.7%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.5 D in APAC eyes with AL < 22 mm. Iridectomized eyes did not show superior precision than the non-iridotomized eyes in the APAC group. CONCLUSIONS: Refractive errors in the APAC group were more myopic than those in the control group. Haigis and Hill-RBF 3.0 showed high precision in the eyes with AL < 22 mm in the APAC group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5. BioMed Central 2023-11-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10675974/ /pubmed/38001418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Kim, Na Hyun
Gim, Yujin
Choi, Kyu-Ryong
Suh, Wool
Jun, Roo Min
Han, Kyung Eun
Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title_full Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title_fullStr Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title_short Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
title_sort comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10675974/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38001418
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5
work_keys_str_mv AT kimnahyun comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack
AT gimyujin comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack
AT choikyuryong comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack
AT suhwool comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack
AT junroomin comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack
AT hankyungeun comparisonofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasinpatientswithahistoryofacuteprimaryangleclosureattack