Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
Development and Clinical Accuracy of the New Paraxial Ray-Tracing IOL Power Formula (VRT) Based on the Thin Lens Assumption.
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.
Voytsekhivskyy Oleksiy V
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate the refractive and clinical accuracy of the novel IOL power calculation formula (VRT) in unoperated Caucasian eyes.
METHODS: This retrospective and single-center study included 1016 eyes of 1016 patients, all operated on by a single surgeon using PARTIAL-RoF narrow IOL (Tecnis 1 ZCB00, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, FL, USA). The complete data set was divided into two groups: the first was used to develop the new formula (489 eyes), and the second-the test group (527 eyes)-was used to assess its performance alongside other formulas (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Cooke K6, Kane, Norrby RT, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone), Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, VRF, and VRF CMAL). The VRT formula is based on a paraxial ray-tracing method that employs two constants and the thin-lens assumption. The ELP algorithm was adopted from the VRF formula, incorporating the Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) correction. Subgroup analysis was also stratified by axial length as follows: short (≤22.00 mm), medium (22.01-25.99 mm), and long (≥26.00 mm). Preoperative examination was performed using the SS-OCT biometer (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). All descriptive statistics were analyzed using optimized lens constants.
RESULTS: The VRT formula demonstrated the highest accuracy (SD 0.358 D), outperforming all traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T), modern thin lens formulas (VRF), and some ray-tracing methods (Norrby RT, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone); P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the new formula showed comparable accuracy with modern methods such as BUII, Hoffer QST, Cooke K6, Kane, and Pearl-DGS (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The VRT formula showed promising results, outperformed traditional formulas, and was comparable to modern IOL power calculation methods in Caucasians, using one IOL model, which can be considered a limitation of this study.
METHODS: This retrospective and single-center study included 1016 eyes of 1016 patients, all operated on by a single surgeon using PARTIAL-RoF narrow IOL (Tecnis 1 ZCB00, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Jacksonville, FL, USA). The complete data set was divided into two groups: the first was used to develop the new formula (489 eyes), and the second-the test group (527 eyes)-was used to assess its performance alongside other formulas (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Cooke K6, Kane, Norrby RT, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone), Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, VRF, and VRF CMAL). The VRT formula is based on a paraxial ray-tracing method that employs two constants and the thin-lens assumption. The ELP algorithm was adopted from the VRF formula, incorporating the Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) correction. Subgroup analysis was also stratified by axial length as follows: short (≤22.00 mm), medium (22.01-25.99 mm), and long (≥26.00 mm). Preoperative examination was performed using the SS-OCT biometer (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). All descriptive statistics were analyzed using optimized lens constants.
RESULTS: The VRT formula demonstrated the highest accuracy (SD 0.358 D), outperforming all traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T), modern thin lens formulas (VRF), and some ray-tracing methods (Norrby RT, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone); P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the new formula showed comparable accuracy with modern methods such as BUII, Hoffer QST, Cooke K6, Kane, and Pearl-DGS (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The VRT formula showed promising results, outperformed traditional formulas, and was comparable to modern IOL power calculation methods in Caucasians, using one IOL model, which can be considered a limitation of this study.