Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and intraocular lens calculation formula accuracy: nine formulas comparison.

Autor:	Hipólito-Fernandes D; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal cdiogo777@gmail.com., Luís ME; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal., Serras-Pereira R; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal., Gil P; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal., Maduro V; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal., Feijão J; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal., Alves N; Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The British journal of ophthalmology [Br J Ophthalmol] 2022 Mar; Vol. 106 (3), pp. 349-355. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 23.
DOI:	10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317822
Abstrakt:	Background/aims: To investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) on 9 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas accuracy, in patients with normal axial lengths. Methods: Retrospective case series, including patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with insertion of a single IOL model, divided into three groups according to preoperative ACD. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups, according to the LT. Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error was calculated for Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF V.2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, PEARL-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Mean prediction error, mean and median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D and ±1.00D were also calculated. Results: The study included 695 eyes from 695 patients. For ACD ≤3.0 mm and ≥3.5 mm, mean prediction error of SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 was significantly different from 0 (p<0.05). PEARL-DGS, Kane, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II were more accurate than the Hoffer Q in ACD ≤3.0 mm (p<0.05). Kane, PEARL-DGS, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II revealed the lowest variance of mean and MedAE by ACD and LT subgroup. Haigis and Hill-RBF V.2.0 were significantly influenced by LT, independently of the ACD, with a myopic shift with thin lenses and a hyperopic shift with thick lenses (p<0.05). Conclusion: New generation formulas, particularly Kane, PEARL-DGS and EVO V.2.0, seem to be more reliable and stable even in eyes with extreme ACD-LT combinations. Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu