4.3 Article

Comparison of 9 modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas for a quadrifocal intraocular lens

期刊

JOURNAL OF CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY
卷 44, 期 8, 页码 942-948

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.05.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of 9 formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function [RBF], Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical [SRK/T], and T2) calculating the power of the quadrifocal Acrysof IQ Panoptix TFNTOO intraocular lens (IOL). Setting: Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. Design: Retrospective case series. Methods: The study included patients having cataract surgery with insertion of a quadrifocal IOL over 15 months. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained from an IOLMaster 500. Optimized IOL constants were calculated to reduce the mean refractive prediction error. The primary outcomes were differences in mean absolute prediction error between the formulas. Median and maximum absolute prediction errors were evaluated as well as percentages of eyes within prediction errors of +/- 0.25 diopters (D), +/- 0.50 D, +/- 1.00 D, and +/- 2.00 D. Results: The study comprised 75 eyes of 38 patients. The formulas were ranked by the mean absolute refractive prediction error as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.294 D), Hill-RBF (0.332 D), Olsen (0.339 D), T2 (0.351 D), Holladay 1 (0.381 D), Haigis (0.382 D), SRK/F (0.393 D), Holladay 2 (0.399 D), and Hoffer Q (0.410 D). The differences in absolute errors between the formulas were significant (P < .001). The lowest maximum absolute prediction error was obtained with the Barrett Universal II. Conclusion: The most accurate predictions of actual postoperative refraction were achieved using the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, Olsen, or T2 formula. Thus, one of these formulas should be used for IOL power calculation of the quadrifocal IOL.

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