Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens

Author:

Rocha-de-Lossada Carlos123ORCID,Colmenero-Reina Elvira4,Flikier David5,Castro-Alonso Francisco-Javier6,Rodriguez-Raton Alvaro7,García-Madrona Jose-Luis4,Peraza-Nieves Jorge1,Sánchez-González José-María89ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic d’Oftalmologia, Barcelona, Spain

2. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital Costal del Sol, Málaga, Spain

3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Málaga, Málaga, Spain

4. Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Vistalaser Clinic, Málaga, Spain

5. Instituto de Cirugía Ocular, San José, Costa Rica

6. Department of Ophthalmology, Alcañiz Hospital, Teruel, Spain

7. Department on Anterior Segment Surgery, Instituto Oftalmológico Rodríguez-Ratón, Bilbao, Spain

8. Department of Physics of Condensed Matter, Optics Area, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

9. Department of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Tecnolaser Clinic Vision, Seville, Spain

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas; Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Olsen Lenstar, Panacea, Pearl-DGS, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T). In addition, an analysis of the efficacy as a function of the axial length was performed. Methods: About 171 from 93 patients: 68 male eyes and 103 female eyes. Twelve IOL power formula calculations were studied with one IOL platform (trifocal hydrophilic IOL, FineVision Micro F), one biometer (Lenstar LS 900), one topographer (CSO Sirius Topographer), one surgeon, and one optometrist. Optimization were determined to be zeroed mean refractive prediction error. Mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and refractive accuracy within ±1.00 D was calculated. Axial length was split in short and medium eyes. Results: One hundred and seventy eyes were included. Formulas were ranked by percentage within ±0.50 diopters and MAE (D). Among all eyes, Olsen 86.55% (0.273 D) and Barrett Universal II 86.55% (0.285D). For short eyes (<22.5 mm), Olsen 90.70% (0.273 D) and Kane 90.70% (0.225 D). For medium eyes, Barrett 89.34% (0.237 D) and Pearl 86.89% (0.263 D). Conclusion: Olsen and Barrett formula obtained excellent accuracy for overall eyes. Kane and Olsen formula obtained the best results in short eyes. For medium axial length Barrett formula achieved the best accuracy results.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Ophthalmology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3