Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery. Methods: The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed. Results: Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power. Conclusions: Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery. Methods: The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed. Results: Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power. Conclusions: Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.
참고문헌 (19)
- Savini G, "Comparison of formula accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation based on measurements by a swept-source optical coherence tomography optical biometer", J Cataract Refract Surg, 46, pp.27~33 (2020)
- Hipólito-Fernandes D, "Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison", Br J Ophthalmol, 106, pp.349~355 (2022)
- Cooke DL, "Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 42, pp.1157~1164 (2016)
- Kane JX, "Intraocular lens power formula accuracy : comparison of 7 formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 42, pp.1490~1500 (2016)
- Darcy K, "Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK National Health Service", J Cataract Refract Surg, 46, pp.2~7 (2020)
- Taroni L, "Comparison of the new Hoffer QST with 4 modern accurate formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 49, pp.378~384 (2023)
- Debellemaniere G, "The PEARL-DGS formula : the development of an open-source machine learning-based thick IOL calculation formula", Am J Ophthalmol, 232, pp.58~69 (2021)
- Chu YC, "Predictability of 6 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in people with very high myopia", Front Med(Lausanne), 9, pp.762761~ (2022)
- Melles RB, "Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas", Ophthalmology, 125, pp.169~178 (2018)
- Melles RB, "Update on intraocular lens calculation formulas", Ophthalmology, 126, pp.1334~1335 (2019)
- Gokce SE, "Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 43, pp.892~897 (2017)
- Shrivastava AK, "Precision of intraocular lens power prediction in eyes shorter than 22 mm : an analysis of 6 formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 44, pp.1317~1320 (2018)
- Holladay JT, "Review and recommendations for univariate statistical analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error for IOL power calculations", J Cataract Refract Surg, 47, pp.65~77 (2021)
- Hoffer KJ, "Update on intraocular lens power calculation study protocols : the better way to design and report clinical trials", Ophthalmology, 128, pp.e115~20 (2021)
- Gale RP, "Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery", Eye(Lond), 23, pp.149~152 (2009)
- Roberts TV, "Comparison of Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery", Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 46, pp.240~246 (2018)
- Tsessler M, "Evaluating the prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula using a heteroscedastic statistical method", J Cataract Refract Surg, 48, pp.37~43 (2022)
- Gaylor DW, "Role of the standard deviation in the estimation of benchmark doses with continuous data", Risk Anal, 24, pp.1683~1687 (2004)
- Doshi D, "A comparative study to assess the predictability of different IOL power calculation formulas in eyes of short and long axial length", J Clin Diagn Res, 11, pp.NC01~4 (2017)