Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry
| Autor: | Carlo Enrico Traverso, Aldo Vagge, Marco Di Maita, Luca Di Cello, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Kristian Næser, Giacomo Savini, Kenneth J. Hoffer |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Male
Optics and Photonics medicine.medical_treatment Mean squared prediction error Visual Acuity Intraocular lens Cataract Extraction Refraction Ocular Standard deviation 03 medical and health sciences Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 0302 clinical medicine Optical biometry lens and zonules optics and refraction medicine Humans Dioptre Aged Retrospective Studies Lenses Intraocular business.industry Cataract surgery Sensory Systems Power (physics) Ophthalmology Axial Length Eye Interferometry Partial coherence interferometry 030221 ophthalmology & optometry Female business Nuclear medicine 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Follow-Up Studies |
| Zdroj: | The British journal of ophthalmology. 105(4) |
| ISSN: | 1468-2079 |
| Popis: | Background/aims To compare the accuracy of 13 formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. Methods In this retrospective interventional case series, optical biometry measurements were entered into these formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII) with and without anterior chamber depth (ACD) as a predictor, EVO 2.0 with and without ACD as a predictor, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2AL, Kane, Næser 2, Pearl-DGS, RBF 2.0, SRK/T, T2 and VRF. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Results Two hundred consecutive eyes were enrolled. With all formulas, the mean PE was zero. The BUII with no ACD had the lowest standard deviation (±0.343 D), followed by the T2 (0.347 D), Kane (0.348 D), EVO 2.0 with no ACD (0.348 D) and BUII with ACD (0.353 D) formulas. The difference among the MedAEs of all formulas was statistically significant (p Conclusion All investigated formulas achieved good results; there was a tendency towards better outcomes with newer formulas. Traditional formulas can still be considered an accurate option. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|