American journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Refractive Predictability of Third-Generation and Modern IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Yamane Intrascleral Fixation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Icoz Mehmet, Tanriverdi Burak, Yakin Mehmet
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the refractive predictability of third-generation and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes undergoing Yamane intrascleral fixation (YISF).
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative evaluation of IOL power calculation accuracy.
SUBJECTS: Eighty-seven eyes of 87 patients who underwent YISF due to aphakia or single-piece IOL subluxation were evaluated.
METHODS: Third-generation formulas (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), and T2) and modern formulas (Barrett Universal II[BUII] and emmetropia verifying optical [EVO] 2.0) were assessed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D were calculated. Analyses were performed before and after constant optimization. The constant optimization was performed using the method of zeroing the ME.
RESULTS: In the initial analysis, all formulas demonstrated a hyperopic shift, with ME values ranging from +0.55D to +0.71D. No significant differences were detected among the formulas in terms of ME, MAE, or MedAE (P > .05). The proportion of eyes with ME within ±0.50D was higher for SRK/T (63%), BUII (60%), and EVO 2.0 (54%) than for Hoffer Q (48%) (P < .001, P < .001, and P = 0.004). In contrast, no significant difference was found in the proportion of eyes with ME within ±1.00D (P > .05). After constant optimization, ME reached zero for all formulas, and no significant differences were observed among the formulas regarding MAE, MedAE, or the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D (P > .05). In both analyses, no statistically significant differences were found among the six formulas with respect to either IOL type or indication (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: A systematic hyperopic shift was observed with all formulas after YISF. Although SRK/T, BUII, and EVO 2.0 appeared more successful before optimization, third-generation and modern formulas demonstrated similar refractive performance after constant optimization. These findings suggest that refractive outcomes are largely influenced by surgery-related variability in actual lens position.
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative evaluation of IOL power calculation accuracy.
SUBJECTS: Eighty-seven eyes of 87 patients who underwent YISF due to aphakia or single-piece IOL subluxation were evaluated.
METHODS: Third-generation formulas (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/Theoretical (SRK/T), and T2) and modern formulas (Barrett Universal II[BUII] and emmetropia verifying optical [EVO] 2.0) were assessed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean prediction error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D were calculated. Analyses were performed before and after constant optimization. The constant optimization was performed using the method of zeroing the ME.
RESULTS: In the initial analysis, all formulas demonstrated a hyperopic shift, with ME values ranging from +0.55D to +0.71D. No significant differences were detected among the formulas in terms of ME, MAE, or MedAE (P > .05). The proportion of eyes with ME within ±0.50D was higher for SRK/T (63%), BUII (60%), and EVO 2.0 (54%) than for Hoffer Q (48%) (P < .001, P < .001, and P = 0.004). In contrast, no significant difference was found in the proportion of eyes with ME within ±1.00D (P > .05). After constant optimization, ME reached zero for all formulas, and no significant differences were observed among the formulas regarding MAE, MedAE, or the proportions of eyes with ME within ±0.50D and ±1.00D (P > .05). In both analyses, no statistically significant differences were found among the six formulas with respect to either IOL type or indication (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: A systematic hyperopic shift was observed with all formulas after YISF. Although SRK/T, BUII, and EVO 2.0 appeared more successful before optimization, third-generation and modern formulas demonstrated similar refractive performance after constant optimization. These findings suggest that refractive outcomes are largely influenced by surgery-related variability in actual lens position.