4.3 Article

Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.07.032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To assess how intraocular lens (IOL) formula choice affects refractive outcomes after cataract surgery using IOLMaster biometry. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, United Kingdom. DESIGN: Database study. METHODS: Hypothetical prediction errors were retrospectively calculated on prospectively collected data from electronic medical records using optimized Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas (Sofport AO and Akreos Fit IOLs) across a range of 0.5 mm or 1.0 mm axial length (AL) subgroups. RESULTS: In short eyes, the Hoffer Q had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) for ALs from 20.00 to 20.99 mm. The Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 had a lower MAE than the SRK/T for ALs from 21.00 to 21.49 mm. There were no statistically significant differences in MAE for ALs from 21.50 to 21.99 mm. In medium eyes, there were no statistically significant differences in MAE for any IOL formula for ALs from 22.00 to 23.49 mm. For ALs from 23.50 to 25.99 mm, there was a trend toward lower MAEs for the Holladay 1, with statistically significant differences in 2 subgroups. In long eyes, the SRK/T had the lowest MAE, with statistically significant differences for ALs of 27.00 mm or longer. CONCLUSIONS: The Hoffer Q performed best for ALs from 20.00 to 20.99 mm, the Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 for ALs from 21.00 to 21.49 mm, and the SRK/T for ALs of 27.00 mm or longer. Using optimized constants, refractive outcomes of 40%, 75%, and 95% within +/- 0.25 diopter (D), +/- 0.50 D, and +/- 1.00 D, respectively, were achievable. Financial Disclosure: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosure is found in the footnotes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据