Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2023
Accuracy of Seven Modern Online IOL Formulas in Eyes With Axial Lengths Longer Than 30 mm.
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.
Mo Er, Chen Zexin, Feng Ke, Yang Fuman, Li Jin, Zhao Yun-E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of newer online intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in extremely elongated eyes (axial length > 30 mm).
METHODS: This retrospective case series study included 236 patients (236 eyes). Postoperative refractive outcomes of the Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer QST (HQST), Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in the extreme myopia group 1 (30 < axial length ≤ 32 mm), extreme myopia group 2 (32 < axial length ≤ 35 mm), and meniscus IOL group. The root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters (D) were calculated for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For the extreme myopia group 1, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest RMSAE (0.361) and EVO 2.0 showed the highest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (85.06%). For the extreme myopia group 2, the RMSAE of the K6 (0.442) and EVO 2.0 (0.475) was significantly lower than the BU II (0.610), Kane (0.641), and HQST (0.759, P ≤ .016) formulas. In the meniscus IOL group, the K6 formula showed the lowest RMSAE (0.402) and the highest percentage within ±0.50 diopters (84.31%).
CONCLUSIONS: The EVO 2.0 and K6 formulas are recommended for IOL power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia. Modern artificial intelligence-based formulas should be used cautiously when the axial length is longer than 32 mm or meniscus IOLs are implanted. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):705-710.].
METHODS: This retrospective case series study included 236 patients (236 eyes). Postoperative refractive outcomes of the Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer QST (HQST), Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in the extreme myopia group 1 (30 < axial length ≤ 32 mm), extreme myopia group 2 (32 < axial length ≤ 35 mm), and meniscus IOL group. The root mean square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and proportions of eyes of prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters (D) were calculated for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: For the extreme myopia group 1, RBF 3.0 achieved the lowest RMSAE (0.361) and EVO 2.0 showed the highest proportion of eyes within ±0.50 diopters (85.06%). For the extreme myopia group 2, the RMSAE of the K6 (0.442) and EVO 2.0 (0.475) was significantly lower than the BU II (0.610), Kane (0.641), and HQST (0.759, P ≤ .016) formulas. In the meniscus IOL group, the K6 formula showed the lowest RMSAE (0.402) and the highest percentage within ±0.50 diopters (84.31%).
CONCLUSIONS: The EVO 2.0 and K6 formulas are recommended for IOL power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia. Modern artificial intelligence-based formulas should be used cautiously when the axial length is longer than 32 mm or meniscus IOLs are implanted. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(10):705-710.].