Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes

被引:7
|
作者
Anter, Abdelrahman M. [1 ]
Bleeker, Adam R. [2 ]
Shammas, H. John [3 ,4 ]
Suraneni, Sanjana [1 ]
Kingrey, Brandon [2 ]
Murphy, David A. [2 ]
Leal, Sebastian [1 ]
Ghalibafan, Seyyedehfatemeh [1 ]
Tonk, Rahul S. [1 ]
Cooke, David L. [5 ,6 ]
Riaz, Kamran M. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Miami, Bascom Palmer Eye Inst, Miami, FL USA
[2] Univ Oklahoma, Dean McGee Eye Inst, Oklahoma City, OK 73104 USA
[3] Univ Southem Calif, Keck Sch Med, Dept Ophthalmol, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] Shammas Eye Med Ctr, Lynwood, CA USA
[5] Great Lakes Eye Care, St Joseph, MI USA
[6] Michigan State Univ, Coll Osteopath Med, Dept Neurol & Ophthalmol, E Lansing, MI USA
关键词
INTRAOPERATIVE ABERROMETRY; ACCURACY; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajo.2024.03.014
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Setting: Two academic centers Study Population: 576 eyes (400 patients) with previous M-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. A SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry values (TK).Observation Procedures: Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 11 no-history formulas: two legacy M-LVC formulas, four new M-LVC formulas using K values only, and five new M-LVC formulas using K with PK or TK. Main Outcome Measures: Heteroscedastic testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance, and formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE). Results: New M-LVC formulas performed better than legacy M-LVC formulas. New M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values performed better than versions without PK/TK values. Among new M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values, EVO 2.0-PK was superior to Hoffer QST-PK (P < 0.005). Among new M-LVC formulas using K only, Pearl DGS-K and EVO 2.0-K were both superior to Hoffer QST-K and Barrett True K NH-K formulas (all P < 0.005). Conclusions: Surgeons should favor using new no-history post M-LVC formulas over legacy post M-LVC formulas whenever possible. The top-performing M-LVC formulas (EVO 2.0-PK, Pearl DGS-PK, and Barrett True K-TK) utilized posterior corneal power values. Among formulas utilizing K alone, the EVO 2.0-K and Pearl DGS-K performed best. (c) 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
引用
收藏
页码:44 / 52
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The effect of patient age on some new and older IOL power calculation formulas
    Sella, Ruti
    Reitblat, Olga
    Durnford, Kathryn M.
    Pettey, Jeff H.
    Olson, Randall J.
    Hahn, Tara E.
    Bernhisel, Ashlie A.
    Afshari, Natalie A.
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, 2024, 102 (05) : e696 - e704
  • [22] Intraocular lens power calculation using adjusted corneal power in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction
    Huh, Jungah
    Eom, Youngsub
    Yoon, Eun Gyu
    Kim, Jun-Heon
    Song, Jong Suk
    Kim, Hyo Myung
    GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 259 (12) : 3729 - 3737
  • [23] Intraocular lens power calculation using adjusted corneal power in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction
    Jungah Huh
    Youngsub Eom
    Eun Gyu Yoon
    Jun-Heon Kim
    Jong Suk Song
    Hyo Myung Kim
    Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 2021, 259 : 3729 - 3737
  • [24] Evaluation of Different IOL Calculation Formulas of the ASCRS Calculator in Eyes After Corneal Refractive Laser Surgery for Myopia With Multifocal IOL Implantation
    Vrijman, Violette
    Abulafia, Adi
    van der Linden, Jan Willem
    van der Meulen, Ivanka J. E.
    Mourits, Maarten P.
    Lapid-Gortzak, Ruth
    JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2019, 35 (01) : 54 - 59
  • [25] Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry
    Savini, Giacomo
    Di Maita, Marco
    Hoffer, Kenneth J.
    Naeser, Kristian
    Schiano-Lomoriello, Domenico
    Vagge, Aldo
    Di Cello, Luca
    Traverso, Carlo E.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 105 (04) : 484 - 489
  • [26] COMPARISON OF 10 METHODS FOR IOL POWER CALCULATION: RESULTS FROM OVER 3000 EYES
    Kane, Jack X.
    Van Heerden, Anton
    Petsoglou, Constantinos
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 44 : 67 - 67
  • [27] Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization
    Romero-Valero, Daniel
    Carceles, Alicia
    Alio, Jorge L.
    Lucas, Carlos E. Monera
    Martinez, Alejandro Moya
    Martinez-Toldos, Jose Juan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2024, 34 (05) : 1469 - 1474
  • [28] Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with axial myopia
    Liu, Jiewei
    Wang, Li
    Chai, Feiyan
    Han, Yu
    Qian, Suqin
    Koch, Douglas D.
    Weikert, Mitchell P.
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2019, 45 (06): : 725 - 731
  • [29] No-history method of intraocular lens power calculation for cataract surgery after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis
    Shammas, H. John
    Shammas, Maya C.
    JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2007, 33 (01): : 31 - 36
  • [30] Comparison of IOL Power Calculation Methods and Intraoperative Wavefront Aberrometer in Eyes After Refractive Surgery
    Canto, Ana Paula
    Chhadva, Priyanka
    Cabot, Florence
    Galor, Anat
    Yoo, Sonia H.
    Vaddavalli, Pravin K.
    Culbertson, William W.
    JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2013, 29 (07) : 484 - 489