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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |