From the Cullen Eye Institute (Hamill, Wang, Chopra, Hill, Koch), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, USA; Shanxi Eye Hospital (Wang), Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China.
From the Cullen Eye Institute (Hamill, Wang, Chopra, Hill, Koch), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, USA; Shanxi Eye Hospital (Wang), Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China.
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Feb;43(2):189-194. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.11.041.
To evaluate the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in patients with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).
Retrospective case series.
Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA.
The 7 formulas evaluated were the adjusted Atlas 0-3, Masket, Modified Masket, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K No-History. The Masket and Modified Masket were calculated using the single-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas; the adjusted Atlas 0-3 was calculated using the double-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. The IOL power predicted by each formula was calculated by targeting the postoperative manifest refraction. The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the implanted IOL power. The mean IOL prediction error, median absolute refractive prediction error, and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction were calculated.
Twenty-one eyes of 21 patients were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the median absolute refractive prediction error or percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction between formulas or methods. The IOL mean prediction errors were comparable between the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q calculations for all formulas except for a greater error for the double-K version of the Hoffer Q of the adjusted Atlas 0-3.
In eyes that had hyperopic LASIK or PRK, there were no significant differences in the accuracy between the 7 IOL calculation formulas.
评估 7 种人工晶状体（IOL）计算公式在既往远视性激光原位角膜磨镶术（LASIK）或准分子激光屈光性角膜切削术（PRK）患者中的准确性。
回顾性病例系列。
美国德克萨斯州休斯顿贝勒医学院的 Cullen 眼科研究所和亚利桑那州梅萨的私人诊所。
评估的 7 种公式为调整后的 Atlas 0-3、Masket、改良 Masket、Haigis-L、Shammas-PL、Barrett True-K 和 Barrett True-K No-History。Masket 和改良 Masket 使用 Holladay 1 和 Hoffer Q 公式的单 K 版本计算；调整后的 Atlas 0-3 使用 Holladay 1 和 Hoffer Q 的双 K 版本计算。每个公式预测的 IOL 屈光力通过瞄准术后的明显屈光度数计算。通过从植入的 IOL 屈光力中减去预测的 IOL 屈光力来获得 IOL 预测误差。计算平均 IOL 预测误差、中位数绝对屈光预测误差以及预测值±0.50 屈光度（D）和±1.00 D 范围内的眼百分比。
共评估了 21 例 21 只眼。在公式或方法之间，中位数绝对屈光预测误差或预测值±0.50 D 或±1.00 D 的眼百分比没有差异。除了调整后的 Atlas 0-3 的 Hoffer Q 双 K 版本的误差较大外，所有公式的 Holladay 1 和 Hoffer Q 计算的 IOL 平均预测误差相似。
在经历过远视性 LASIK 或 PRK 的眼中，7 种 IOL 计算公式的准确性没有显著差异。
