Cargando…

Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes

BACKGROUND: Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY DESIGN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jun, Shao, Jie, Zheng, Li, Shen, Ye, Zhao, Xia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34034681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7
_version_ 1783697526086434816
author Zhang, Jun
Shao, Jie
Zheng, Li
Shen, Ye
Zhao, Xia
author_facet Zhang, Jun
Shao, Jie
Zheng, Li
Shen, Ye
Zhao, Xia
author_sort Zhang, Jun
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. RESULTS: This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). CONCLUSIONS: The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8146991
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81469912021-05-25 Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes Zhang, Jun Shao, Jie Zheng, Li Shen, Ye Zhao, Xia BMC Ophthalmol Research BACKGROUND: Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. RESULTS: This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). CONCLUSIONS: The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data. BioMed Central 2021-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8146991/ /pubmed/34034681 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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
Zhang, Jun
Shao, Jie
Zheng, Li
Shen, Ye
Zhao, Xia
Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title_full Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title_fullStr Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title_full_unstemmed Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title_short Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
title_sort comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed zz iol and four existing iol formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146991/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34034681
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjun comparativeclinicalaccuracyanalysisofthenewlydevelopedzziolandfourexistingiolformulasforpostcornealrefractivesurgeryeyes
AT shaojie comparativeclinicalaccuracyanalysisofthenewlydevelopedzziolandfourexistingiolformulasforpostcornealrefractivesurgeryeyes
AT zhengli comparativeclinicalaccuracyanalysisofthenewlydevelopedzziolandfourexistingiolformulasforpostcornealrefractivesurgeryeyes
AT shenye comparativeclinicalaccuracyanalysisofthenewlydevelopedzziolandfourexistingiolformulasforpostcornealrefractivesurgeryeyes
AT zhaoxia comparativeclinicalaccuracyanalysisofthenewlydevelopedzziolandfourexistingiolformulasforpostcornealrefractivesurgeryeyes