正视
超声乳化术
眼科
均方预测误差
人工晶状体
数学
医学
核医学
折射误差
视力
统计
作者
Heng-Yi Yuan,Jiaqing Zhang,Xiaotong Han,Jinfeng Ye,Yiguo Huang,Ruoxuan Huang,Ling Wen,Xiaozhang Qiu,Xiaoyun Chen,Kailin Chen,Xuhua Tan,Lixia Luo
摘要
Abstract Purpose To evaluate the performance of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas and the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD), axial length (AL) and lens thickness (LT) on the prediction accuracy in shallow ACD eyes. Methods This retrospective, consecutive case‐series study included 648 eyes of 648 patients with an ACD < 3.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Eleven formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill‐Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, Olsen, Pearl‐DGS and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T). Subgroup analysis was performed based on ACD, AL and LT. Results Overall, the Hoffer QST and Kane showed no systematic bias. The Kane, EVO 2.0, Hill‐RBF 3.0 and Hoffer QST had relatively lower mean absolute error and higher percentages of prediction error within ±0.5 D. For the ACD of 2.5–3.0 mm and AL < 22.0 mm subgroup, the Pearl‐DGS exhibited the lowest MAE (0.45 D) and MedAE (0.41 D). Most formulas had a significant myopic bias (−0.43 to −0.18 D, p < 0.05) in the LT < 4.3 mm subgroup and a significant hyperopic bias (0.09–0.29 D, p < 0.05) in the LT ≥ 5.1 mm subgroup. Conclusion The Kane and Hoffer QST were recommended for shallow ACD eyes. In eyes with an ACD between 2.5 and 3.0 mm and a short AL, the Pearl‐DGS showed excellent performance. Clinicians need to fine‐tune the target refraction according to LT in shallow ACD eyes.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI