American journal of ophthalmology · 2023
Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus Eyes Comparing Keratometry, Total Keratometry, and Newer Formulae.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heath Michael T, Mulpuri Lakshman, Kimiagarov Eden, Patel Raj P, Murphy David A, Levine Harry, Tonk Rahul S, Cooke David L, Riaz Kamran M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the utility of keratometry vs total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing.
RESULTS: KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE.
CONCLUSIONS: KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
METHODS: This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing.
RESULTS: KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE.
CONCLUSIONS: KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used.