Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: A Comparison of Methods in 173 Eyes
Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: A Comparison of Methods in 173 Eyes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.08.048
复制
发表时间：
2011-05-01
期刊：
影响因子：
13.7
通讯作者：
Holland, Simon P.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McCarthy, Martin;Gavanski, Gregory M.;Holland, Simon P.
目的：在一项大型、多外科医生参与的研究中，评估和比较已发表的近视激光屈光手术后人工晶状体(IOL)度数的计算方法。设计：回顾病例系列。参与者：共117例173只眼，接受LASIK(89只眼)或准分子激光屈光性角膜切削术(84只眼)治疗近视及后续白内障。临床病史方法(顶点矫正到角膜平面)、Aramberri Double-K、Latkany Flat-K、Feiz和Mannis、R-Factor、Corneal Bypass、Masket(2006年)、Haigis-L和Shammas.cd屈光调整方法与第三代和第四代光学散光公式一起进行适当的评估。主要观察指标：预测误差算术平均+/-标准差(SD)，范围(最小和最大)，0~-1.0屈光度(D)，+/-0.5D，+/-1.0D，+/-2.0D。结果：前5种角膜屈光度调整技术和公式组合的平均预测误差，标准差，最大限度地减少远视“屈光不正的惊喜”的是带有霍夫Q公式的眼罩，也就是Shammes。CD法、Haigis-L法、HoffQ法和Latkany Flat-K法的平均预测误差和标准差分别为-0.18+/-0.87D、-0.10+/-1.02D、-0.26+/-1.13D、-0.27+/-1.04D和-0.37+/-0.91D。70%~85%的眼可在目标屈光度1.0D以内达到视觉效果。沙马斯和海吉斯-L方法的优点是不需要潜在的不准确的历史信息。财务披露(S)：作者(S)对本文讨论的任何材料没有所有权或商业利益。眼科2011；美国眼科学会118：940-944(C)2011。
Purpose: To evaluate and compare published methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after myopic laser refractive surgery in a large, multi-surgeon study.Design: Retrospective case series.Participants: A total of 173 eyes of 117 patients who had uneventful LASIK (89) or photorefractive keratectomy (84) for myopia and subsequent cataract surgery.Methods: Data were collected from primary sources in patient charts. The Clinical History Method (vertex corrected to the corneal plane), the Aramberri Double-K, the Latkany Flat-K, the Feiz and Mannis, the R-Factor, the Corneal Bypass, the Masket (2006), the Haigis-L, and the Shammas.cd postrefractive adjustment methods were evaluated in conjunction with third-and fourth-generation optical vergence formulas, as appropriate. Intraocular lens power required for emmetropia was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction and implanted IOL power, and then formula accuracy was compared.Main Outcome Measures: Prediction error arithmetic mean +/- standard deviation (SD), range (minimum and maximum), and percent within 0 to -1.0 diopters (D), +/- 0.5 D, +/- 1.0 D, and +/- 2.0 D relative to target refraction.Results: The top 5 corneal power adjustment techniques and formula combinations in terms of mean prediction errors, standard deviations, and minimizing hyperopic "refractive surprises" were the Masket with the Hoffer Q formula, the Shammas. cd with the Shammas-PL formula, the Haigis-L, the Clinical History Method with the Hoffer Q, and the Latkany Flat-K with the SRK/T with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of -0.18 +/- 0.87 D, -0.10 +/- 1.02 D, -0.26 +/- 1.13 D, -0.27 +/- 1.04 D, and -0.37 +/- 0.91 D, respectively.Conclusions: By using these methods, 70% to 85% of eyes could achieve visual outcomes within 1.0 D of target refraction. The Shammas and the Haigis-L methods have the advantage of not requiring potentially inaccurate historical information.Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Ophthalmology 2011;118:940-944 (C) 2011 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.