Accuracy of the Kane Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Comparison with Existing Formulas: A Retrospective Review
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison with existing formulas by incorporating optional variables into calculation. Materials and Methods: This retrospective review consisted of 78 eyes of patients who had undergone uneventful phacoemulsification with intraocular implantation at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between February 2020 and January 2021. The Kane formula was compared with six of the existing IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay1, Holladay2, Barrett Universal II) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ±0.50D, and ±1.00D. Results: The Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs (0.26±0.17D), MedAEs (0.28D), and percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ± 0.50D, and ±1.00D, although there was no statistically significant difference between Barrett Universal II-SRK/T (p=0.06), and Barrett Universal II-Kane formula (p<0.51). Following the Barrett Universal II formula, the Kane formula demonstrated the second most accurate formula with MAEs (0.30±0.19D) and MedAEs (0.28D). However, no statistical difference was shown between Kane-Barrett Universal II (p=0.51) and Kane-SRK/T (p=0.14). Conclusion: Although slightly better refractory outcome was noted in the Barrett Universal II formula, the performance of the Kane formula in refractive prediction was comparable in IOL power calculation, marking its superiority over many conventional IOL formulas, such as HofferQ, Haigis, Holladay1, and Holladay2.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of the Kane formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in comparison with existing formulas by incorporating optional variables into calculation. Materials and Methods: This retrospective review consisted of 78 eyes of patients who had undergone uneventful phacoemulsification with intraocular implantation at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between February 2020 and January 2021. The Kane formula was compared with six of the existing IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay1, Holladay2, Barrett Universal II) based on the mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ±0.50D, and ±1.00D. Results: The Barrett Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs (0.26±0.17D), MedAEs (0.28D), and percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25D, ± 0.50D, and ±1.00D, although there was no statistically significant difference between Barrett Universal II-SRK/T (p=0.06), and Barrett Universal II-Kane formula (p<0.51). Following the Barrett Universal II formula, the Kane formula demonstrated the second most accurate formula with MAEs (0.30±0.19D) and MedAEs (0.28D). However, no statistical difference was shown between Kane-Barrett Universal II (p=0.51) and Kane-SRK/T (p=0.14). Conclusion: Although slightly better refractory outcome was noted in the Barrett Universal II formula, the performance of the Kane formula in refractive prediction was comparable in IOL power calculation, marking its superiority over many conventional IOL formulas, such as HofferQ, Haigis, Holladay1, and Holladay2.
참고문헌 (17)
- Fontes BM, "Intraocular lens power calculation by measuring axial length with partial optical coherence and ultrasonic biometry", Arq Bras Oftalmol, 74, pp.166~170 (2011)
- Melles RB, "Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas", Ophthalmology, 125, pp.169~178 (2018)
- Connell BJ, "Comparison of the Kane formula with existing formulas for intraocular lens power selection", BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 4, pp.e000251~ (2019)
- Retzlaff JA, "Development of the SRK", T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula, 1990, pp.16, 333~340
- 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)
- Kane JX, "Intraocular lens power formula accuracy : comparison of 7 formulas", J Cataract Refract Surg, 42, pp.1490~1500 (2016)
- Hipólito-Fernandes D, "VRF-G, a new intraocular lens power calculation formula : a 13-formulas comparison study", Clin Ophthalmol, 14, pp.4395~4402 (2020)
- Melles RB, "Update on intraocular lens calculation formulas", Ophthalmology, 126, pp.1334~1335 (2019)
- Reitblat O, "Intraocular lens power calculation in the elderly population using the Kane formula in comparison with existing methods", J Cataract Refract Surg, 46, pp.1501~1507 (2020)
- Aristodemou P, "Intraocular lens calculations", Ophthalmology, 118, pp.1221~ (2011)
- Foreman KJ, "Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death : reference and alternative scenarios for 2016-40 for 195 countries and territories", Lancet, 392, pp.2052~2090 (2018)
- Fukuoka H, "The impact of age-related cataract on measures of frailty in an aging global population", Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 28, pp.93~97 (2017)
- Lutz W, "The coming acceleration of global population ageing", Nature, 451, pp.716~719 (2008)
- 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)
- Kenneth J. Hoffer, "Update on Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Study Protocols", Ophthalmology, 128(11), pp.e115~e120 (2021), Elsevier BV[DOI]
- Carlos Rocha-de-Lossada, "Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens", European Journal of Ophthalmology, 31(6), pp.2981~2988 (2021), SAGE Publications[DOI]
- Biswas P, "Commentary: Barrett’s universal II formula:time to change the old trends?", Indian J Ophthalmol, 68, pp.64~65 (2020)