Accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens power selection

被引:121
作者
Kane, Jack X. [1 ,2 ]
Van Heerden, Anton [1 ]
Atik, Alp [1 ]
Petsoglou, Constantinos [2 ]
机构
[1] Alfred Hlth, Dept Ophthalmol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Discipline Clin Ophthalmol, Sydney, NSW, Australia
关键词
PARTIAL COHERENCE INTERFEROMETRY; CATARACT-SURGERY; FORMULA; POSITION; EYES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.021
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens (IOL) power selection (Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF] method, FullMonte method, and the Ladas Super Formula) compared with that of the Holladay 1 and Barrett Universal II formulas. Setting: Ophthalmology Department, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: Patients who had uneventful cataract surgery with insertion of the Acrysof IC) SN6OWF IOL over 5 years were included in the study. Data obtained from the electronic medical record and the IOLMaster device were entered into the respective calculators using self-designed computer programs. Using optimized lens constants, the predicted refractive outcome using each of the 5 methods/formulas was calculated and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Eyes were separated into subgroups based on axial length as follows: short (<= 22.0 mm), medium (>22.0 to <24.5 mm), medium -long (>= 24.5 to <26.0 mm), and long (>= 26.0 mm). Results: The study comprised 3122 eyes of 3122 patients. A statistically significant difference in the mean absolute prediction error (MAE) between the 5 methods for IOL power calculation was found (P <.001), with the Barrett Universal II formula being the most accurate. The Ladas Super Formula had the third lowest MAE, the Hill-RBF the fourth lowest MAE, and the FullMonte the highest MAE of the 5 methods assessed. Conclusion: New methods for predicting the postoperative refraction failed to yield more accurate results than current formulas. (C) 2017 ASCRS and ESCRS
引用
收藏
页码:333 / 339
页数:7
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry [J].
Aristodemou, Petros ;
Cartwright, Nathaniel E. Knox ;
Sparrow, John M. ;
Johnston, Robert L. .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2011, 37 (01) :63-71
[2]  
Barrett GD, Barrett Universal II formula
[3]  
Clarke G, 2016, ASCRS S CAT IOL REFR
[4]   Comparison of intraocular lens computations using a neural network versus the Holladay formula [J].
Clarke, GP ;
Burmeister, J .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 1997, 23 (10) :1585-1589
[5]   Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas [J].
Cooke, David L. ;
Cooke, Timothy L. .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2016, 42 (08) :1157-1164
[6]  
Dalton M., 2016, OPHTHALMOLOGY T 0314
[7]   Analysis of nonlinear systems to estimate intraocular lens position after cataract surgery [J].
Findl, O ;
Struhal, W ;
Dorffner, G ;
Drexler, W .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2004, 30 (04) :863-866
[8]   Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry [J].
Findl, O ;
Drexler, W ;
Menapace, R ;
Heinzl, H ;
Hitzenberger, CK ;
Fercher, AF .
JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY, 2001, 27 (06) :861-867
[9]  
Hill WE, HILL RBF METHOD
[10]   Protocols for Studies of Intraocular Lens Formula Accuracy [J].
Hoffer, Kenneth J. ;
Aramberri, Jaime ;
Haigis, Wolfgang ;
Olsen, Thomas ;
Savini, Giacomo ;
Shammas, H. John ;
Bentow, Stanley .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 160 (03) :403-405