Cargando…

Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes. METHODS: Four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Hongyu, Ye, Zi, Luo, Yu, Li, Zhaohui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36063246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4
_version_ 1784898050331770880
author Li, Hongyu
Ye, Zi
Luo, Yu
Li, Zhaohui
author_facet Li, Hongyu
Ye, Zi
Luo, Yu
Li, Zhaohui
author_sort Li, Hongyu
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes. METHODS: Four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myopic eyes were defined as an axial length more than 24.5 mm. There are 13 formulae to participate in the final comparison (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis for traditional formulae, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, T2, VRF, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, LSF for the new-generation formulae). The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D. RESULTS: A total of 2273 eyes in 15 studies were enrolled in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the new-generation formulae showed a relatively more accurate outcome in comparison with traditional formulae. The percentage of eyes with a predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D (± 1.0D) of Kane, EVO and LSF was higher than 80% (95%), which was only significantly different from Hoffer Q (all P < 0.05). Moreover, another two new-generation formulae, Barrett Universal II and Olsen, had higher percentages than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I and Haigis for eyes with predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D (all P < 0.05). In ± 0.5D group, Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.02), and Holladay I was better than EVO (P = 0.03) and LSF (P = 0.009), and Hoffer Q had a lower percentage than EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF and LSF (P = 0.007, 0.004, 0.002, 0.03, respectively). Barrett Universal II was better than T2 (P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparison. CONCLUSION: The new-generation formula is more accurate in intraocular lens power calculation for axial myopic eyes in comparison with the third- or fourth-generation formula. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9971158
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99711582023-03-01 Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis Li, Hongyu Ye, Zi Luo, Yu Li, Zhaohui Int Ophthalmol Original Paper PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes. METHODS: Four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane library, were searched to select relevant studies published between Apr 11, 2011, and Apr 11, 2021. Axial myopic eyes were defined as an axial length more than 24.5 mm. There are 13 formulae to participate in the final comparison (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis for traditional formulae, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, T2, VRF, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, LSF for the new-generation formulae). The primary outcomes were the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D. RESULTS: A total of 2273 eyes in 15 studies were enrolled in the final meta-analysis. Overall, the new-generation formulae showed a relatively more accurate outcome in comparison with traditional formulae. The percentage of eyes with a predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D (± 1.0D) of Kane, EVO and LSF was higher than 80% (95%), which was only significantly different from Hoffer Q (all P < 0.05). Moreover, another two new-generation formulae, Barrett Universal II and Olsen, had higher percentages than SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I and Haigis for eyes with predictive refraction error in ± 0.5D and ± 1.0D (all P < 0.05). In ± 0.5D group, Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.02), and Holladay I was better than EVO (P = 0.03) and LSF (P = 0.009), and Hoffer Q had a lower percentage than EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF and LSF (P = 0.007, 0.004, 0.002, 0.03, respectively). Barrett Universal II was better than T2 (P = 0.02), and Hill-RBF was better than SRK/T (P = 0.009). No significant difference was found in other pairwise comparison. CONCLUSION: The new-generation formula is more accurate in intraocular lens power calculation for axial myopic eyes in comparison with the third- or fourth-generation formula. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4. Springer Netherlands 2022-09-05 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9971158/ /pubmed/36063246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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/) .
spellingShingle Original Paper
Li, Hongyu
Ye, Zi
Luo, Yu
Li, Zhaohui
Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title_full Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title_short Comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
title_sort comparing the accuracy of the new-generation intraocular lens power calculation formulae in axial myopic eyes: a meta-analysis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9971158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36063246
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-022-02466-4
work_keys_str_mv AT lihongyu comparingtheaccuracyofthenewgenerationintraocularlenspowercalculationformulaeinaxialmyopiceyesametaanalysis
AT yezi comparingtheaccuracyofthenewgenerationintraocularlenspowercalculationformulaeinaxialmyopiceyesametaanalysis
AT luoyu comparingtheaccuracyofthenewgenerationintraocularlenspowercalculationformulaeinaxialmyopiceyesametaanalysis
AT lizhaohui comparingtheaccuracyofthenewgenerationintraocularlenspowercalculationformulaeinaxialmyopiceyesametaanalysis