Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
Ophthalmology Department, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central EPE, Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
Br J Ophthalmol. 2022 Mar;106(3):349-355. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-317822. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To investigate the influence of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) on 9 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas accuracy, in patients with normal axial lengths.
Retrospective case series, including patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with insertion of a single IOL model, divided into three groups according to preoperative ACD. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups, according to the LT. Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error was calculated for Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF V.2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, PEARL-DGS and SRK/T formulas. Mean prediction error, mean and median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D and ±1.00D were also calculated.
The study included 695 eyes from 695 patients. For ACD ≤3.0 mm and ≥3.5 mm, mean prediction error of SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 was significantly different from 0 (p<0.05). PEARL-DGS, Kane, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II were more accurate than the Hoffer Q in ACD ≤3.0 mm (p<0.05). Kane, PEARL-DGS, EVO V.2.0 and Barrett Universal II revealed the lowest variance of mean and MedAE by ACD and LT subgroup. Haigis and Hill-RBF V.2.0 were significantly influenced by LT, independently of the ACD, with a myopic shift with thin lenses and a hyperopic shift with thick lenses (p<0.05).
New generation formulas, particularly Kane, PEARL-DGS and EVO V.2.0, seem to be more reliable and stable even in eyes with extreme ACD-LT combinations.
背景/目的：研究前房深度（ACD）和晶状体厚度（LT）对 9 种眼内透镜（IOL）计算公式准确性的影响，这些患者的眼轴长度正常。
回顾性病例系列研究，纳入接受单纯白内障手术并植入单一眼内透镜模型的患者，根据术前 ACD 将患者分为三组。每组根据 LT 进一步分为三个亚组。使用优化常数，计算 Barrett Universal II、Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) V.2.0、Haigis、Hill-RBF V.2.0、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、Kane、PEARL-DGS 和 SRK/T 公式的屈光预测误差。还计算了平均预测误差、平均和中位数绝对误差（MedAE）以及在 ±0.25D、±0.50D 和 ±1.00D 范围内的眼数百分比。
该研究纳入了 695 名患者的 695 只眼。对于 ACD≤3.0mm 和 ACD≥3.5mm，SRK/T、Hoffer Q 和 Holladay 1 的平均预测误差与 0 有显著差异（p<0.05）。在 ACD≤3.0mm 时，PEARL-DGS、Kane、EVO V.2.0 和 Barrett Universal II 比 Hoffer Q 更准确（p<0.05）。Kane、PEARL-DGS、EVO V.2.0 和 Barrett Universal II 显示出 ACD 和 LT 亚组之间平均和 MedAE 方差最小。Haigis 和 Hill-RBF V.2.0 受 LT 的影响显著，与 ACD 无关，薄晶状体呈近视漂移，厚晶状体呈远视漂移（p<0.05）。
新一代公式，特别是 Kane、PEARL-DGS 和 EVO V.2.0，即使在 ACD-LT 组合极端的情况下，似乎也更可靠和稳定。
