Suppr超能文献

使用现代人工晶状体公式比较传统与飞秒激光白内障手术技术的屈光准确性

A Comparison of Refractive Accuracy Between Conventional and Femtosecond Laser Cataract Surgery Techniques Using Modern IOL Formulas.

作者信息

Connell Benjamin J, Kane Jack X, Vajpayee Rasik B

机构信息

Eye Surgery Associates, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Corneal Unit, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Clin Ophthalmol. 2021 Mar 2;15:899-907. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S296032. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the refractive outcome prediction accuracy between conventional (CCS) and femtosecond laser assisted (FLACS) cataract surgery techniques using optimized lens constants for modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our retrospective, comparative, interventional case series, compared data from 196 eyes undergoing CCS and 456 eyes undergoing FLACS with Acrysof IOL (Alcon laboratories, Inc) implantation. After optimizing IOL constants, the predicted refractive outcome was calculated for all formulas for each case. This was compared to the actual refractive outcome to provide the prediction error. The performance of CCS and FLACS was compared by the absolute prediction error and percentage of eyes within 0.25D, 0.5D and 1.0D of anticipated refractive outcome.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in median absolute error between the CCS and LACS groups for the Kane (0.256, 0.236; p=0.389), SRK T (0.298, 0.302, p=0.910), Holladay (0.312, 0.275; p=0.090), Hoffer Q (0.314, 0.289; p=0.330), Haigis (0.309, 0.258; p=0.177), Barrett Universal 2(0.250, 0.250; p=0.866), Holladay 2 (0.250, 0.258; p=0.860) and Olsen (0.260, 0.255; p=0.570) formulas. Similarly, there was no consistent difference between the two techniques for percentage of patients within 0.25, 0.50 and 1.0D of predicted refractive outcome for each formula.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in refractive outcome prediction accuracy between the CCS and FLACS techniques.

摘要

目的

使用现代人工晶状体(IOL)公式的优化晶状体常数,比较传统白内障超声乳化手术(CCS)和飞秒激光辅助白内障手术(FLACS)之间的屈光结果预测准确性。

患者和方法

我们的回顾性、比较性、干预性病例系列研究,比较了196只接受CCS手术的眼睛和456只接受FLACS手术并植入Acrysof IOL(爱尔康实验室公司)的眼睛的数据。在优化IOL常数后,计算每个病例所有公式的预测屈光结果。将其与实际屈光结果进行比较以提供预测误差。通过绝对预测误差以及预期屈光结果在0.25D、0.5D和1.0D范围内的眼睛百分比,比较CCS和FLACS的性能。

结果

对于Kane公式(0.256,0.236;p = 0.389)、SRK T公式(0.298,0.302,p = 0.910)、Holladay公式(0.312,0.275;p = 0.090)、Hoffer Q公式(0.314,0.289;p = 0.330)、Haigis公式(0.309,0.258;p = 0.177)、Barrett Universal 2公式(0.250,0.250;p = 0.866)、Holladay 2公式(0.250,0.258;p = 0.860)和Olsen公式(0.260,0.255;p = 0.570),CCS组和FLACS组之间的中位绝对误差无统计学显著差异。同样地,对于每个公式,在预测屈光结果的0.25D、0.50D和1.0D范围内的患者百分比,两种技术之间也没有一致的差异。

结论

CCS和FLACS技术在屈光结果预测准确性方面没有差异。

相似文献

5
Comparison of the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas.11种人工晶状体屈光力计算公式准确性的比较
Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021 Sep;31(5):2370-2376. doi: 10.1177/1120672120962030. Epub 2020 Oct 15.

本文引用的文献

9
Update on Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.人工晶状体计算公式的最新进展。
Ophthalmology. 2019 Sep;126(9):1334-1335. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.04.011. Epub 2019 Apr 11.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验