Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization

被引:0
作者
Romero-Valero, Daniel [1 ,4 ]
Carceles, Alicia [1 ]
Alio, Jorge L. [2 ]
Lucas, Carlos E. Monera [1 ]
Martinez, Alejandro Moya [3 ]
Martinez-Toldos, Jose Juan [1 ]
机构
[1] Gen Univ Hosp Elche, Dept Opthalmol, Elche, Spain
[2] VISSUM Ophthalmol Inst Alicante, Elche, Spain
[3] Gen Univ Hosp Elche, Stat Dept, Elche, Spain
[4] Hosp Gen Univ Elche, Serv Oftalmol, Carrer Almazara 11, Elche 03203, Spain
关键词
IOL power calculation; Evaluation of IOL power calculation formulas; INTRAOCULAR-LENS POWER; PURSUING PERFECTION; ACCURACY; CRITERIA;
D O I
10.1177/11206721241230347
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization.Design Retrospective case series.Methods The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE).Results Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed.Conclusions the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.
引用
收藏
页码:1469 / 1474
页数:6
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], Barrett Universal II Formula V1.05
  • [2] [Anonymous], Hill-RBF Calculator
  • [3] [Anonymous], EVO IOL CALCULATOR V
  • [4] Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas
    Cooke, David L.
    Cooke, Timothy L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2016, 42 (08) : 1157 - 1164
  • [5] A Simplified Method to Minimize Systematic Bias of Single-Optimized Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
    Gatinel, Damien
    Debellemaniere, Guillaume
    Saad, Alain
    Rampat, Radhika
    Wallerstein, Avi
    Gauvin, Mathieu
    Malet, Jacques
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 253 : 65 - 73
  • [6] Pursuing perfection in IOL calculations. II. Measurement foibles: Measurement errors, validation criteria, IOL constants, and lane length
    Hill, Warren E.
    Abulafia, Adi
    Wang, Li
    Koch, Douglas D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 43 (07) : 869 - 870
  • [8] Review and recommendations for univariate statistical analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error for IOL power calculations
    Holladay, Jack T.
    Wilcox, Rand R.
    Koch, Douglas D.
    Wang, Li
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 47 (01) : 65 - 77
  • [9] iolformula, KANE FORMULA
  • [10] Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: Comparison of 7 formulas
    Kane, Jack X.
    van Heerden, Anton
    Atik, Alp
    Petsoglou, Constantinos
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2016, 42 (10) : 1490 - 1500