Cargando…

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS: The study included patien...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Se Young, Lee, Seung Hyun, Kim, Na Rae, Chin, Hee Seung, Jung, Ji Won
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31935241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638
_version_ 1783487616844300288
author Kim, Se Young
Lee, Seung Hyun
Kim, Na Rae
Chin, Hee Seung
Jung, Ji Won
author_facet Kim, Se Young
Lee, Seung Hyun
Kim, Na Rae
Chin, Hee Seung
Jung, Ji Won
author_sort Kim, Se Young
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS: The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6959581
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69595812020-01-26 Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer Kim, Se Young Lee, Seung Hyun Kim, Na Rae Chin, Hee Seung Jung, Ji Won PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS: The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL. Public Library of Science 2020-01-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6959581/ /pubmed/31935241 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638 Text en © 2020 Kim et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kim, Se Young
Lee, Seung Hyun
Kim, Na Rae
Chin, Hee Seung
Jung, Ji Won
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title_full Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title_fullStr Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title_short Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
title_sort accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959581/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31935241
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227638
work_keys_str_mv AT kimseyoung accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer
AT leeseunghyun accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer
AT kimnarae accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer
AT chinheeseung accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer
AT jungjiwon accuracyofintraocularlenspowercalculationformulasusingasweptsourceopticalbiometer