Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK National Health Service
Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK National Health Service
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.08.014
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Kane, Jack X.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Darcy, Kieren;Gunn, David;Kane, Jack X.
目的：比较新的/更新的人工透镜（IOL）度数计算方法的准确性（Kane、Hill-RBF 2.0和Holladay 2，具有新的轴向长度调整）与已建立的方法相同（Barrett Universal II、Olsen、Haigis、Holladay 1、Hoffer Q和SRK/T）。设置：布里斯托眼科医院、大学医院、布里斯托国家卫生服务、基金会信托、布里斯托、英国。设计：回顾性连续病例系列。方法：纳入了4种类型IOL中的1种植入后顺利进行白内障手术的患者的数据。优化的IOL常数用于计算每例患者的每种公式的预测屈光度。将其与实际屈光结果进行比较，以给出预测误差。根据眼轴长度和IOL类型进行亚组分析。该研究包括10930例患者的10930只眼，Kane公式具有最低的平均绝对预测误差（MAE），具有统计学意义（所有情况下P < .001），其次是Hill 2.0、Olsen、Holladay 2、Barrett Universal 2、Holladay 1、SRK/T、Haigis和Hoffer Q公式。预测在+/- 0.5 D范围内的眼睛百分比为Kane，72%; Hill 2.0，71.2%; Olsen，70.6%; Holladay 2，71%; Barrett 2，70.7%; SRK/T，69.1%; Haigis，69%;和Hoffer Q，68.1%。对于短、中、长眼轴长度亚组和评估的每种IOL类型，Kane公式的MAE最低。Holladay 2和Hill 2.0公式的更新版本提高了准确性。结论：总体而言，在每个轴长亚组，凯恩公式比其他公式更准确。版权所有（C）2019由威科集团代表ASCRS和ESCRS发布
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of new/updated methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation (Kane, Hill-RBF 2.0, and Holladay 2 with new axial length adjustment) with that of established methods (Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T).Setting: Bristol Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service, Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.Design: Retrospective consecutive case series.Methods: Data from patients having uneventful cataract surgery with the insertion of 1 of 4 IOL types were included. Optimized IOL constants were used to calculate the predicted refraction of each formula for each patient. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. A subgroup analysis occurred based on the axial length and IOL type.Results: The study included 10930 eyes of 10930 patients with the Kane formula having the lowest mean absolute prediction error (MAE), which was statistically significant (P < .001 in all cases) followed by the Hill 2.0, Olsen, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal 2, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formula. The percentage of eyes predicted within +/- 0.5 D was Kane, 72%; Hill 2.0, 71.2%; Olsen, 70.6%; Holladay 2, 71%; Barrett 2, 70.7%; SRK/T, 69.1%; Haigis, 69%; and Hoffer Q, 68.1%. The Kane formula had the lowest MAE for short, medium, and long axial length subgroups and for each IOL type assessed. The updated versions of the Holladay 2 and Hill 2.0 formulas have resulted in improved accuracy.Conclusions: Overall and in each axial length subgroup, the Kane formula was more accurate than the other formulas. Copyright (C) 2019 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS