Comparison of Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery
Comparison of Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal and current third generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power during cataract surgery
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/ceo.13034
复制
发表时间：
2018-04-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Lawless, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Roberts, Timothy V.;Hodge, Chris;Lawless, Michael
重要性本研究对最近推出的人工晶状体屈光力计算公式进行了新颖的比较。背景比较当前新一代计算公式，用于计算在澳大利亚私人团体实践中接受白内障和晶状体置换手术的标准队列患者的人工晶状体屈光度。设计回顾性病例系列比较。参与者使用了由 12 名外科医生在白内障摘除后接受 SN60WF 人工晶状体植入的 400 名连续患者的术后结果。方法比较屈光结果使用 Hill 径向基函数、Barrett Universal II 和现成的第三代或第四代人工晶状体屈光度计算公式与预期目标来确定预测屈光结果。主要结果测量平均绝对预测误差。结果平均绝对预测差异范围为 0.30 至 0.34D。公式之间的预测差异或方差总体上不存在显着差异。所有配方均使超过 78.3% 的眼睛在 0.5D 的预期屈光范围内。与短眼和长眼的现有公式相比，希尔径向基函数和 Barrett 公式分别提供了最低的平均数值误差。 Barrett Universal II 公式在所有眼轴长度上的屈光异常百分比最低（与预测误差相比>1D）。结论和相关性通过光学生物测量、一致的手术技术和使用当前的人工晶状体屈光力计算公式可以实现可接受的结果。与其他人工晶状体度数计算公式相比，Barrett Universal II 公式可提供最低的屈光意外风险。
ImportanceThis study represents a novel comparison of recently introduced intraocular lens power calculation formulas.BackgroundTo compare current new generation formulas for calculating the intraocular lens power for a standard cohort of patients undergoing cataract and lens replacement surgery in a private group practice in Australia.DesignRetrospective case series comparison.ParticipantsPostoperative results from 400 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an SN60WF intraocular lens post cataract removal by 12 surgeons were used.MethodsRefractive outcomes were compared with expected targets to determine the predicted refractive outcomes using the Hill-radial basis function, Barrett Universal II and readily available third or fourth generation intraocular lens power calculation formulas.Main Outcome MeasureMean absolute predicted error.ResultsThe mean absolute predicted difference ranged from 0.30 to 0.34D. There was no overall significant difference in the predicted difference or variance between formulas. All formulas achieved greater than 78.3% of eyes within 0.5D of intended refraction. The Hill-radial basis function and Barrett formulas provided the lowest mean numerical error compared with existing formulas in short and long eyes, respectively. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest percentage of refractive surprises (>1D from predicted error) across all axial lengths.Conclusions and RelevanceAcceptable outcomes can be achieved with optical biometry, consistent surgical technique and use of current intraocular lens power calculation formulas. The Barrett Universal II formula may provide the lowest risk of refractive surprise compared with other intraocular lens power calculation formulas.