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