角膜曲率计
角膜磨镶术
眼科
屈光度
光折变性角膜切除术
激光手术
折射误差
人工晶状体度数计算
均方预测误差
人工晶状体
医学
激光矫视
白内障手术
角膜
数学
眼病
视力
算法
作者
Xin Rong,Jiewei Liu,Lin Jiang,Xiaogang Wang,Tianfeng Feng,Z.C. Hu X.L. Lü,Zeqi Fan,Hua Yan
标识
DOI:10.3928/1081597x-20240422-01
摘要
Purpose: To assess the predictive accuracy of new-generation online intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery (LRS) and to evaluate the influence of corneal asphericity on the predictive accuracy. Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated 52 patients (78 eyes) with a history of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) who subsequently underwent cataract surgery. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 12 no-history new online formulas: 8 formulas with post-LRS versions (Barrett True-K, EVO 2.0, Hoffer QST, and Pearl DGS) using keratometry and posterior/total keratometry measured by IOLMaster 700 and 4 formulas without post-LRS versions (Cooke K6 and Kane) using keratometry and total keratometry. The refractive prediction error, mean absolute error (MAE), and percentages of eyes with prediction errors of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±1.50 diopters (D) were compared. Results: The MAEs of the 12 formulas were significantly different (F = 83.66, P < .001). The MAEs ranged from 0.62 to 0.94 D and from 1.07 to 1.84 D in the formulas with and without post-LRS versions, respectively. The EVO formula produced the lowest MAE (0.60) and MedAE (0.47), followed by the Barrett True-K (0.69 and 0.50, respectively). Each percentage of eyes with refractive prediction error was also significantly different among the 12 formulas ( P < .001). Conclusions: The EVO and Barrett True-K formulas demonstrate comparable performance to the other existing formulas in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK. Surgeons should use these formulas with post-LRS versions and input keratometric values whenever possible. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(6):e354–e361.]
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI