European journal of ophthalmology · 2022
Intraocular lens constant optimization in toric intraocular lens calculation using keratometry and total corneal power.
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.
Liang Jianheng, Liu Hui, Zhou Suowang, Zhou Lijing, Qian Zhuyun, Jiang Lihong, Chen Xu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) constant optimization in toric IOL calculation with keratometry (K) and total corneal refractive power (TCRP).
METHODS: Predicted spherical equivalent (SE) and residual astigmatism (RA) with K and TCRP were retrospectively calculated using the Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae and optimized IOL constants. The results of the Barrett calculator and the Abulafia-Koch formula with K were also calculated. The median absolute error in SE (MedAE-SE), mean absolute error in RA (MAE-RA), and centroid error (CE) were analyzed.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine eyes of 71 patients implanted with toric IOLs were included. With K, there were no significant differences between the results before and after constant optimization using all the formulae. With TCRP, constant optimization significantly reduced MedAE-SE; however, significantly increased MAE-RA and CE using the Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulae. MedAE-SE, MAE-RA, and CE using the Haigis formula did not show significant differences. The difference in the predicted RA before and after constant optimization increased with IOL toricity. The MedAE-SE predicted by TCRP was significantly higher than that predicted by K despite constant optimization. The MAE-RA and CE predicted by TCRP were significantly lower than those predicted by K without posterior corneal astigmatism optimization; however, were not significantly different from those predicted by the Barrett and Abulafia-Koch formulae.
CONCLUSIONS: Constant optimization is recommended when using the TCRP in toric IOL calculations, particularly for patients with large astigmatism. However, TCRP did not yield more accurate results than optimized K in toric IOL calculations despite constant optimization.
METHODS: Predicted spherical equivalent (SE) and residual astigmatism (RA) with K and TCRP were retrospectively calculated using the Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulae and optimized IOL constants. The results of the Barrett calculator and the Abulafia-Koch formula with K were also calculated. The median absolute error in SE (MedAE-SE), mean absolute error in RA (MAE-RA), and centroid error (CE) were analyzed.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine eyes of 71 patients implanted with toric IOLs were included. With K, there were no significant differences between the results before and after constant optimization using all the formulae. With TCRP, constant optimization significantly reduced MedAE-SE; however, significantly increased MAE-RA and CE using the Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulae. MedAE-SE, MAE-RA, and CE using the Haigis formula did not show significant differences. The difference in the predicted RA before and after constant optimization increased with IOL toricity. The MedAE-SE predicted by TCRP was significantly higher than that predicted by K despite constant optimization. The MAE-RA and CE predicted by TCRP were significantly lower than those predicted by K without posterior corneal astigmatism optimization; however, were not significantly different from those predicted by the Barrett and Abulafia-Koch formulae.
CONCLUSIONS: Constant optimization is recommended when using the TCRP in toric IOL calculations, particularly for patients with large astigmatism. However, TCRP did not yield more accurate results than optimized K in toric IOL calculations despite constant optimization.