Intraocular lens power calculation using a Placido disk-Scheimpflug tomographer in eyes that had previous myopic corneal excimer laser surgery
Intraocular lens power calculation using a Placido disk-Scheimpflug tomographer in eyes that had previous myopic corneal excimer laser surgery
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.018
复制
发表时间：
2018-08-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Barboni, Piero
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Savini, Giacomo;Hoffer, Kenneth J.;Barboni, Piero
目的：评估不同方法计算眼内透镜（IOL）屈光力的准确性，这些屈光力是通过光学生物计结合Placido disk-Scheimpflug断层摄影机（Galilei G6）在既往接受过近视准分子激光手术的眼睛中获得的测量值计算的。Bietti基金会，罗马，意大利。设计：前瞻性病例series.Methods：当屈光前手术数据可用时，对以下方法进行评价：Barrett True-K，总角膜屈光力1（TCP 1）与双K SRK/T，TCP与双K Holladay 1，以及Masket和Savini方法。在所有的眼睛中，这些“无历史”的方法进行了研究：巴雷特True-K无历史，TCP 1使用美国白内障和屈光手术学会计算器，射线追踪程序，和Shammas无历史公式。在有历史资料的眼（n = 15）中，Masket法、Savini法、与双K SRK/T的TCP 1相比，屈光度绝对预测误差为0.50 D或更小的病例百分比最高，（分别为0.32 D、0.28 D和0.25 D）。在整个队列（N = 22）中，最准确的无病史方法是近轴光线追踪，其绝对预测误差为0.50 D或更小的眼睛百分比最高，绝对误差中位数最低，为0.31 D。不同的解决方案可以提供准确的IOL屈光度计算，当使用与Placido-双Scheimpflug断层摄影机。
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of different methods to calculate the intraocular lens (IOL) power from measurements obtained with an optical biometer combined with a Placido disk-Scheimpflug tomographer (Galilei G6) in eyes that had previous myopic excimer laser surgery.Setting: G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy.Design: Prospective case series.Methods: When prerefractive surgery data were available, the following methods were evaluated: the Barrett True-K, total corneal power 1 (TCP 1) with double-K SRK/T, TCP with double-K Holladay 1, as well as the Masket and Savini methods. In all eyes, these "no-history" methods were studied: Barrett True-K No-History, TCP 1 using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery calculator, a ray-tracing program, and the Shammas No-History formula.Results: In eyes with historical data (n = 15), the Masket method, Savini method, and TCP 1 with double-K SRK/T produced the highest percentage of cases with an absolute prediction error in refraction of 0.50 diopters (D) or less and the lowest median absolute error (0.32 D, 0.28 D, and 0.25 D, respectively). In the whole cohort (N = 22), the most accurate no-history method was paraxial ray tracing, which had the highest percentage of eyes with an absolute prediction error of 0.50 D or less and the lowest median absolute error of 0.31 D.Conclusion: Different solutions can provide accurate IOL power calculations when using the measurements obtained with the optical biometer combined with a Placido-dual Scheimpflug tomographer.