Eye (London, England) · 2024
Accuracy of formulas for intraocular lens power for eyes undergoing descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty and cataract surgery.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Boccia Rosa, Scorcia Vincenzo, Lanza Michele, Luciano Giuseppe, Lucisano Andrea, Sbordone Sandro, Melillo Paolo, Simonelli Francesca
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To compare accuracy in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes undergoing combined cataract and Descemet stripping and automated endothelial keratoplasty (C-DSAEK) surgery of the following formulas: Barrett Universal II, EVO, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Kane and SRK/T.
METHODS: 72 eyes from 72 patients (38 males, (53%)) with a mean age 68.08 ± 8.69 years (from 44 to 88 years old) underwent combined C-DSAEK were included. The IOL powers to implant were calculated with Barrett Universal II formula targeting -1 D refraction. Preoperative and postoperative data were used to obtain the median of absolute prediction errors (MAE) targeting emmetropia with every tested formula.
RESULTS: Means of MAE calculated were +1.45 D for Barrett Universal II, +1.37 D for EVO, +1.48 D for Haigis, +1.38 D for Hoffer Q, +1.37 D for Holladay 2, +1.39 D for Kane and +1.31 D for SRK/T. SRK/T MAE showed major significant (p < 0.01) differences compared to the other formulas.
DISCUSSION: Even if tested formulas are not able to accurately target emmetropia, SRK/T seems to be able to provide closer results in eyes undergoing C-DSAEK.
METHODS: 72 eyes from 72 patients (38 males, (53%)) with a mean age 68.08 ± 8.69 years (from 44 to 88 years old) underwent combined C-DSAEK were included. The IOL powers to implant were calculated with Barrett Universal II formula targeting -1 D refraction. Preoperative and postoperative data were used to obtain the median of absolute prediction errors (MAE) targeting emmetropia with every tested formula.
RESULTS: Means of MAE calculated were +1.45 D for Barrett Universal II, +1.37 D for EVO, +1.48 D for Haigis, +1.38 D for Hoffer Q, +1.37 D for Holladay 2, +1.39 D for Kane and +1.31 D for SRK/T. SRK/T MAE showed major significant (p < 0.01) differences compared to the other formulas.
DISCUSSION: Even if tested formulas are not able to accurately target emmetropia, SRK/T seems to be able to provide closer results in eyes undergoing C-DSAEK.