Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2024
Performance of IOL calculation formulas that use measured posterior corneal power in eyes following myopic laser vision correction.
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.
Kenny Peter I, Kozhaya Karim, Truong Paulina, Wang Li, Koch Douglas D, Weikert Mitchell P
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the predictive accuracy of the biometer-embedded Barrett True-K TK and new total corneal power methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with prior laser vision correction (LVC) for myopia.
SETTING: Academic clinical practice.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
METHODS: IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR).
RESULTS: The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS.
CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.
SETTING: Academic clinical practice.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series.
METHODS: IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR).
RESULTS: The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS.
CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.