高度近视眼的人工晶状体度数计算：Barrett Universal II、Haigis 和 Olsen 公式的比较。
Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with extreme myopia: Comparison of Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas.
机构信息
Department of Ophthalmology and the Eye Institute, Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Shanghai, China.
Department of Ophthalmology and the Eye Institute, Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, NHC Key Laboratory of Myopia (Fudan University); Key Laboratory of Myopia, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; and Shanghai Key Laboratory of Visual Impairment and Restoration, Shanghai, China.
出版信息
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019 Jun;45(6):732-737. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.12.025. Epub 2019 Mar 12.
PURPOSE
To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with extreme myopia.
SETTING
Eye and Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
DESIGN
Prospective case series.
METHODS
Eyes were divided into 3 axial length (AL) groups as follows: 26.0 to 28.0 mm (control), 28.0 to 30.0 mm (extreme myopia 1), and 30.0 mm or more (extreme myopia 2). The mean error (ME) 1 month postoperatively was adjusted to zero by optimizing the lens factor; then, the median absolute errors (MedAEs) were compared between formulas. Factors associated with postoperative refractive errors were analyzed.
RESULTS
After optimization, the MEs of the Barrett Universal II, Haigis, and Olsen formulas were 0.04 diopter (D) ± 0.48 (SD), 0.04 ± 0.66 D, and 0.04 ± 0.52 D, respectively, and the MedAEs were 0.37 D, 0.46 D, and 0.39 D, respectively (P = .044; Haigis versus Barrett: P = .038). In the extreme myopia 1 group, all 3 formulas produced small MedAEs (P = .662). In the extreme myopia 2 group, the Haigis formula produced a significantly greater MedAE than the Barrett Universal II formula (P = .007; Haigis versus Olsen: P = .055). The accuracy of the Haigis formula in myopic eyes was affected by the AL and keratometry value, whereas the accuracy of the Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas was affected by the AL only.
CONCLUSIONS
In eyes with an AL of 28.0 to 30.0 mm, all 3 formulas were accurate. In eyes with AL of 30.0 mm or more, the Barrett Universal II formula was better than the Haigis formula, possibly because there were fewer influencing factors.
目的
比较 Barrett Universal II、Haigis 和 Olsen 公式在计算高度近视患者眼内人工晶状体（IOL）度数中的准确性。
设置
复旦大学眼耳鼻喉科医院，中国上海。
设计
前瞻性病例系列。
方法
将眼分为 3 个眼轴（AL）组如下：26.0 至 28.0 mm（对照组）、28.0 至 30.0 mm（高度近视 1 组）和 30.0 mm 或更长（高度近视 2 组）。通过优化晶状体因子将术后 1 个月的平均误差（ME）调整为零，然后比较公式之间的中绝对值误差（MedAE）。分析与术后屈光误差相关的因素。
结果
优化后，Barrett Universal II、Haigis 和 Olsen 公式的 ME 分别为 0.04 屈光度（D）±0.48（SD）、0.04±0.66 D 和 0.04±0.52 D，MedAE 分别为 0.37 D、0.46 D 和 0.39 D（P=0.044；Haigis 与 Barrett：P=0.038）。在高度近视 1 组中，所有 3 种公式的 MedAE 均较小（P=0.662）。在高度近视 2 组中，Haigis 公式的 MedAE 明显大于 Barrett Universal II 公式（P=0.007；Haigis 与 Olsen：P=0.055）。Haigis 公式在近视眼中的准确性受 AL 和角膜曲率值的影响，而 Barrett Universal II 和 Olsen 公式的准确性仅受 AL 的影响。
结论
在 AL 为 28.0 至 30.0 mm 的眼中，所有 3 种公式均准确。在 AL 为 30.0 mm 或更长的眼中，Barrett Universal II 公式优于 Haigis 公式，可能是因为影响因素较少。
Zotero 插件