正视
人工晶状体度数计算
镜头(地质)
人工晶状体
数学
协议限制
光学
显著性差异
平均差
折射
眼科
均方预测误差
屈光度
医学
折射误差
物理
视力
核医学
算法
统计
置信区间
作者
Leonardo Taroni,Kenneth J. Hoffer,Enrico Lupardi,Piero Barboni,Giacomo Savini
出处
期刊:Journal of Refractive Surgery
[SLACK, Inc.]
日期:2021-03-01
卷期号:37 (3): 202-206
被引量:8
标识
DOI:10.3928/1081597x-20210104-01
摘要
PURPOSE: To investigate whether using lens thickness measurement as an optional input improves the refractive accuracy of four new generation formulas. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for cataract surgery were enrolled. Preoperative biometry was performed with an OA-2000 optical biometer (Tomey). All patients received the same monofocal intraocular lens (AcrySof SN-60WF; Alcon Laboratories, Inc). The Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) formulas were analyzed with and without the inclusion of lens thickness as an input. Postoperative refraction was measured at 1 month. The mean prediction error (PE), the median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±1.00 diopters (D) or less were calculated after constant optimization. RESULTS: The final analysis was performed on 169 eyes of 169 patients. Comparison of the mean PE, MedAE, and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D resulting from each formula with and without lens thickness did not reveal any statistically significant difference. Cochran's Q test showed a statistically significant difference among formulas in the percentage of eyes with a PE of less than ±0.50 D ( P = .042). However, Dunn's post-hoc test did not show any statistically significant difference between any pair of formulas. CONCLUSIONS: Lens thickness measurement did not improve the accuracy of the BUII, EVO, Kane, or RBF formulas. The RBF formula yielded the same results with and without lens thickness, thus making this input useless. [ J Refract Surg . 2021;37(3):202–206.]
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI