4.3 Article

Gender differences in refraction prediction error of five formulas for cataract surgery

期刊

BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12886-021-01950-2

关键词

IOL power calculation; Refraction prediction error; Lens constant optimization

资金

  1. MCubed Diamond grant
  2. GME Innovations grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gender differences were found in optical biometry measurements and lens power calculations. Modern IOL formulas showed significantly different prediction errors for males and females, with males tending to be more hyperopic and females more myopic. Optimization of lens constants by gender can reduce refraction prediction errors for certain modern IOL formulas.
Objectives To evaluate gender differences in optical biometry measurements and lens power calculations. Methods Eight thousand four hundred thirty-one eyes of five thousand five hundred nineteen patients who underwent cataract surgery at University of Michigan's Kellogg Eye Center were included in this retrospective study. Data including age, gender, optical biometry, postoperative refraction, implanted intraocular lens (IOL) power, and IOL formula refraction predictions were gathered and/or calculated utilizing the Sight Outcomes Research Collaborative (SOURCE) database and analyzed. Results There was a statistical difference between every optical biometry measure between genders. Despite lens constant optimization, mean signed prediction errors (SPEs) of modern IOL formulas differed significantly between genders, with predictions skewed more hyperopic for males and myopic for females for all 5 of the modern IOL formulas tested. Optimization of lens constants by gender significantly decreased prediction error for 2 of the 5 modern IOL formulas tested. Conclusions Gender was found to be an independent predictor of refraction prediction error for all 5 formulas studied. Optimization of lens constants by gender can decrease refraction prediction error for certain modern IOL formulas.

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