Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024
Risk Factors for Postoperative Refractive Error in New-Generation Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.
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.
Nishida Shohei, Inomata Yasuya, Hirata Akira
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We examined differences in the accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas: the traditional Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T) formula; the Barrett Universal II (BU II) formula, which is a new-generation IOL calculation formula; and the postoperative spherical equivalent prediction using artificial intelligence and linear algorithms developed by Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad formula (PEARL-DGS [PEARL]) formula, and evaluated factors that cause postoperative refractive error (PE).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 205 patients (205 eyes) with a mean age of 75.2 ± 8.7 years who underwent cataract surgery at our institution from December 2018 to October 2023. The PE of the three IOL calculation formulas was calculated and compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with a PE higher than ±0.50 D as the dependent variable, and age, sex, axial length (AL), mean keratometry (mean K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white (WTW) as independent variables.
RESULTS: The mean PE (ME) ± standard deviation of the SRK/T, BU II, and PEARL formulas was 0.11 ± 0.52, 0.11 ± 0.50, and 0.21 ± 0.50 D, respectively. MEs of the three IOL calculation formulas were significantly different from 0 (p < 0.01). The median absolute error (MedAE) was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.83). The percentage of PE within ±0.50 D was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.13). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the significantly associated factors with PE higher than ±0.50 D were AL, ACD, and LT for the SRK/T formula, sex and LT for the BU II formula, and LT for the PEARL formula (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: In the BU II and PEARL formulas, AL was excluded as a factor affecting PE, indicating that LT was a risk factor.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 205 patients (205 eyes) with a mean age of 75.2 ± 8.7 years who underwent cataract surgery at our institution from December 2018 to October 2023. The PE of the three IOL calculation formulas was calculated and compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with a PE higher than ±0.50 D as the dependent variable, and age, sex, axial length (AL), mean keratometry (mean K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white (WTW) as independent variables.
RESULTS: The mean PE (ME) ± standard deviation of the SRK/T, BU II, and PEARL formulas was 0.11 ± 0.52, 0.11 ± 0.50, and 0.21 ± 0.50 D, respectively. MEs of the three IOL calculation formulas were significantly different from 0 (p < 0.01). The median absolute error (MedAE) was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.83). The percentage of PE within ±0.50 D was not significantly different among the three IOL calculation formulas (p = 0.13). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the significantly associated factors with PE higher than ±0.50 D were AL, ACD, and LT for the SRK/T formula, sex and LT for the BU II formula, and LT for the PEARL formula (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: In the BU II and PEARL formulas, AL was excluded as a factor affecting PE, indicating that LT was a risk factor.