屈光度
超声乳化术
人工晶状体
数学
眼科
人工晶状体度数计算
均方预测误差
绝对偏差
白内障手术
平均绝对误差
医学
算法
视力
统计
均方误差
作者
Woong-Joo Whang,Kyungmin Koh,Kenneth J. Hoffer,Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello,Enrico Lupardi,Leonardo Taroni,Ho Seok Chung,Giacomo Savini
出处
期刊:Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2024-10-16
标识
DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001569
摘要
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs. Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, … Methods: Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization. Results: With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization. Conclusions: With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI