Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To evaluate the predictive accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in eyes with an axial length (AL) less than 22.00&#xa0;mm.</p> Methods <p>New-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF] 3.0, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) were evaluated for predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed based on AL and anterior chamber depth (ACD).</p> Results <p>The study enrolled a total of 184 eyes from 184 patients. The BUII, Hoffer QST, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T showed myopic shifts (-0.49 to -0.18 diopters [D], <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05), whereas K6 displayed a hyperopic shift (0.11 D, <i>P</i> = 0.03). The Kane exhibited no systematic bias (-0.07 D), and yielded lower mean absolute error (MAE) (0.48 D, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.05) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) (0.65 D, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.01). For eyes with an AL ≤ 21.5&#xa0;mm and an ACD &gt; 2.5&#xa0;mm, the Pearl-DGS displayed the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and lowest RMSAE (0.57 D), while other new-generation formulas showed relatively worse performance (MAE: 0.46 to 0.67 D; RMSAE: 0.60 to 0.84 D).</p> Conclusion <p>The Kane formula showed the highest accuracy in short eyes, whereas the Pearl-DGS had superior performance in eyes with a relatively shorter AL and deeper ACD.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Intraocular lens calculation formula selection for short eyes: based on axial length and anterior chamber depth

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月16日

查看全文
  • Ruoxi Gao,
  • Jiaqing Zhang,
  • Xiaotong Han,
  • Yiguo Huang,
  • Ruoxuan Huang,
  • Jinfeng Ye,
  • Ling Wen,
  • Xiaozhang Qiu,
  • Xiaoyun Chen,
  • Xuhua Tan,
  • Lixia Luo

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the predictive accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in eyes with an axial length (AL) less than 22.00 mm.

Methods

New-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF] 3.0, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) were evaluated for predictive accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed based on AL and anterior chamber depth (ACD).

Results

The study enrolled a total of 184 eyes from 184 patients. The BUII, Hoffer QST, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T showed myopic shifts (-0.49 to -0.18 diopters [D], P < 0.05), whereas K6 displayed a hyperopic shift (0.11 D, P = 0.03). The Kane exhibited no systematic bias (-0.07 D), and yielded lower mean absolute error (MAE) (0.48 D, P < 0.05) and root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) (0.65 D, P < 0.01). For eyes with an AL ≤ 21.5 mm and an ACD > 2.5 mm, the Pearl-DGS displayed the smallest MAE (0.43 D) and lowest RMSAE (0.57 D), while other new-generation formulas showed relatively worse performance (MAE: 0.46 to 0.67 D; RMSAE: 0.60 to 0.84 D).

Conclusion

The Kane formula showed the highest accuracy in short eyes, whereas the Pearl-DGS had superior performance in eyes with a relatively shorter AL and deeper ACD.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.