Accuracy of IOL power calculation in pediatric aphakia secondary implantation

被引:0
作者
Zou, Ying-Shi [1 ]
Jin, Jia-Xin [1 ]
Li, Yun-Qian [1 ]
Jin, Ling [1 ]
Xu, Jing-Min [1 ]
Zhu, Wei-Ning [1 ]
Chen, Hui [1 ]
Yin, Qiu-Xia [1 ]
Liu, Yi-Zhi [1 ]
Liu, Zhen-Zhen [1 ]
机构
[1] Sun Yat Sen Univ, Guangdong Prov Key Lab Ophthalmol & Visual Sci, Guangdong Prov Clin Res Ctr Ocular Dis, State Key Lab Ophthalmol,Zhongshan Ophthalm Ctr, Guangzhou 510060, Guangdong, Peoples R China
关键词
intraocular lens calculation; pediatric aphakia; secondary intraocular lens implantation; aphakic anterior chamber depth; INTRAOCULAR-LENS IMPLANTATION; SUTURELESS SCLERAL FIXATION; CALCULATION FORMULAS; REFRACTIVE OUTCOMES; ANTERIOR-CHAMBER; VISUAL-ACUITY; CHILDREN; DEPTH;
D O I
10.18240/ijo.2025.07.12
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas with/without preoperative aphakic anterior chamber depth (aph-ACD) in pediatric aphakia. METHODS: A total of 102 pediatric patients (150 eyes) undergoing secondary IOL implantation were divided into two groups (in-the-bag or ciliary sulcus). Prediction error was calculated for 9 IOL power calculation formulas, including: 1) not requiring ACD: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T; 2) usable without or with entering ACD: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, and Ladas Artificial Intelligence Super ( Ladas AI); 3) requiring ACD: Haigis, Kane, and Pearl-DGS. Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within +/- 0.25, +/- 0.50, +/- 0.75, and +/- 1.00 D were calculated. RESULTS: For the BUII, EVO 2.0, and Ladas AI, with aph-ACD demonstrated a higher MedAE compared to without aph-ACD (BUII: 1.27 vs 1.13 D, EVO 2.0: 1.26 vs 1.06 D, Ladas AI: 1.30 vs 1.10 D; all P<0.05). Formulas requiring ACD (Haigis, Kane, and Pearl-DGS) exhibited larger MedAE than those not requiring aph-ACD (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T; P<0.05). In the capsular group, the percentage of eyes within +/- 1.00 D ranged from 44.83% to 74.14%, and it was 19.57% to 32.61% in the sulcus group. CONCLUSION: The introduction of aph-ACD does not improve the accuracy of IOL calculation for pediatric aphakia, regardless of in-the-bag or sulcus IOL secondary implantation. The relationship between aph-ACD and effective lens position in pediatric aphakia warrants further study.
引用
收藏
页码:1294 / 1301
页数:8
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Comparison of aphakic refraction formulas for secondary in-the-bag intraocular lens power estimation in children [J].
Abdel-Hafez, Ghada ;
Trivedi, Rupal H. ;
Wilson, M. Edward ;
Bandyopadhyay, Dipankar .
JOURNAL OF AAPOS, 2011, 15 (05) :432-434
[2]  
Baradaran-Rafii Alireza, 2014, J Ophthalmic Vis Res, V9, P71
[4]  
BUII, Barrett Universal II
[5]   Comparison of Aphakic Refraction and Biometry-Based Formulae for Secondary In-The-Bag and Sulcus-Implanted Intraocular Lens Power Estimation in Children [J].
Chang, Pingjun ;
Li, Zhangliang ;
Zhang, Fan ;
Lin, Lei ;
Kou, Jiaojiao ;
Zhao, Yun-e .
OPHTHALMIC RESEARCH, 2021, 64 (06) :1048-1054
[6]   The PEARL-DGS Formula: The Development of an Open-source Machine Learning-based Thick IOL Calculation Formula [J].
Debellemaniere, Guillaume ;
Dubois, Mathieu ;
Gauvin, Mathieu ;
Wallerstein, Avi ;
Brenner, Luis F. ;
Rampat, Radhika ;
Saad, Alain ;
Gatinel, Damien .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2021, 232 :58-69
[7]   Role of ultrasound biomicroscopy in the planning for secondary implantation of intra ocular lens in aphakia [J].
Elfiky, Mohamed ;
Saad, Hisham ;
Elseht, Rabab ;
Selima, Adel .
INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2016, 36 (03) :391-400
[8]  
evoiolcalculator, EVO 2.0: Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0
[9]   Camellens FIL622-1 IOL Implantation in the Ciliary Sulcus: Refractive Outcomes and Optimization of A-constant [J].
Fossati, Giovanni ;
Vallejo-Garcia, Jose Luis ;
Raimondi, Raffaele ;
Santoru, Francesco ;
Buzzi, Matilde ;
Ferraro, Vanessa ;
Feo, Alessandro ;
Rosetta, Pietro ;
Vinciguerra, Paolo ;
Vinciguerra, Riccardo .
JOURNAL OF REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2022, 38 (12) :806-811
[10]  
Haigis Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T