角膜曲率计
角膜磨镶术
眼科
屈光度
光折变性角膜切除术
激光手术
折射误差
人工晶状体度数计算
均方预测误差
人工晶状体
医学
激光矫视
白内障手术
角膜
数学
眼病
视力
算法
作者
Xin Rong,Jiewei Liu,Lin Jiang,Xiaogang Wang,Tianfeng Feng,Zhenyang Lu,Zeqi Fan,Hua Yan
标识
DOI:10.3928/1081597x-20240422-01
摘要
Purpose: To assess the predictive accuracy of new-generation online intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery (LRS) and to evaluate the influence of corneal asphericity on the predictive accuracy. Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated 52 patients (78 eyes) with a history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) who subsequently underwent cataract surgery. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 12 no-history new online formulas: 8 formulas with post-LRS versions (Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, and Pearl DGS) using keratometry and posterior/total keratometry measured by IOLMaster 700 and 4 formulas without post-LRS versions (Cooke K6 and Kane) using keratometry and total keratometry. The refractive prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with prediction errors of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±1.50 diopters (D) were compared. Results: The MAEs of the 12 formulas were significantly different (F = 83.66, P < .001). The MAEs ranged from 0.62 to 0.94 D and from 1.07 to 1.84 D in the formulas with and without post-LRS versions, respectively. The EVO formula produced the lowest MAE (0.60) and MedAE (0.47), followed by the Barrett True-K (0.69 and 0.50, respectively). Each percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error was also significantly different among the 12 formulas ( P < .001). Conclusions: The EVO and Barrett True-K formulas demonstrate comparable performance to the other existing formulas in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK. Surgeons should use these formulas with post-LRS versions and input keratometric values whenever possible. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(6):e354–e361.]
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI