Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Ophthalmol ; 265: 105-116, 2024 May 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38703800

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the predictive accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and axial length (AL) adjusted traditional IOL formulas, including Wang-Koch and Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) method, in long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, and to compare refractive prediction error variances with C-loop IOLs. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case series study. METHODS: Data from 391 eyes with Zeiss 509 M and 302 eyes with Alcon SN6CWS implants in highly myopic patients, following cataract surgery from January 2019 to November 2023, were collected. One eye per patient was selected. Predictive outcomes of 15 modern formulas (Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Karmona, Ladas AI, Naeser 2, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, T2, VRF-G, Zhu-Lu, and Z-Calc) and 4 traditional IOL formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) with AL adjusted methods, were evaluated. The mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and the proportions of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 Diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analyzed. Top 10 RMSAE-ranked formulas underwent further subgroup analysis based on AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry (K). RESULTS: For the 509 M group, RMSAE ranking for the top 10 IOL formulas were the RBF 3.0 (0.432), Zhu-Lu (0.436), Olsen (0.436), EVO 2.0 (0.437), Pearl-DGS (0.447), K6 (0.452), VRF-G (0.454), Naeser 2 (0.464), Haigis-CMAL (0.465) and Karmona (0.477). Karmona and Naeser 2 showed poorer performance in the extremely long AL and steep K subgroups, respectively (p ≤ 0.042). Haigis-CMAL accuracy was significantly lower in shallow ACD and flat K subgroups (P ≤ .045). The SN6CWS group showed significantly lower MAE and RMSAE compared to the 509 M group for the BU II, EVO 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Zhu-Lu formulas (P ≤ .024). CONCLUSIONS: In long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, RBF 3.0 performed best, closely followed by Zhu-Lu, Olsen, and EVO 2.0; Karmona and Naeser 2 are discouraged for extreme AL and steep K conditions, respectively; Haigis-CMAL is not suggested for shallow ACD and flat K cases. Refractive outcomes in eyes implanted with a C-loop design IOL were more accurate than for those implanted with a plate-haptic design, for most tested formulas.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...