From the Aier School of Ophthalmology, Central South University, Changsha, China (Tan, Wang, Peng, Zheng, Lin); Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Aier Eye Hospital Group, Changsha, China (Tan, Zhao, Peng, Lin); Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Aier Eye Hospital Group, Wuhan, China (Wang).
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Apr 1;48(4):462-468. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000873.
To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods for extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) IOLs in eyes with a history of myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery lacking historical data.
Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, and Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Retrospective case series.
Patients with axial lengths (ALs) ≥25.0 mm and a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of EDoF IOLs were enrolled. A comparison was performed of the accuracy of 10 IOL methods lacking historical data, including Barrett True-K no history (Barrett TKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, and Potvin-Hill formulas and average, minimum, and maximum IOL power on the ASCRS online postrefractive IOL calculator; Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) formula; and Schuster/Schanzlin-Thomas-Purcell (SToP) formulas based on Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. IOL power was calculated with the abovementioned methods in 2 groups according to AL (Group 1: 25.0 mm ≤ AL < 28.0 mm and Group 2: AL ≥ 28.0 mm).
64 eyes were included. Excellent outcomes were achieved with the minimum, Barrett TKNH, SToP (SRK/T), and Triple-S formulas in the whole sample and subgroups, which led to similar median absolute error, mean absolute error, and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.5 diopters (D). In the whole sample, the Haigis-L and maximum formulas had a significantly higher absolute error than minimum, SToP (SRK/T), and Barrett TKNH formulas. The maximum formula also had a significantly lower percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D than the Barrett TKNH, and SToP (SRK/T) formulas (15.6% vs 50% and 51.5%, all P < .05 with Bonferroni adjustment).
Predicting the EDoF IOL power in postmyopic refractive eyes by no-history IOL formulas remains challenging. The Barrett TKNH, Triple-S, minimum, and SToP (SRK/T) formulas achieved the best accuracy when AL ≥ 25.0 mm, while the Barrett TKNH and SToP (SRK/T) formulas were recommended when AL ≥ 28.0 mm.
比较缺乏历史数据的近视激光辅助原位角膜磨镶术（LASIK）/准分子激光角膜切削术（PRK）术后患者的扩展景深（EDoF）人工晶状体（IOL）计算方法的准确性。
中国长沙艾格眼科医院和武汉艾格眼科医院。
回顾性病例系列。
纳入眼轴（AL）≥25.0mm且有近视 LASIK/PRK 手术史的患者，这些患者接受了 EDoF IOL 白内障手术。比较了 10 种缺乏历史数据的 IOL 方法的准确性，包括 Barrett True-K 无历史（Barrett TKNH）、Haigis-L、Shammas 和 Potvin-Hill 公式以及 ASCRS 在线屈光后 IOL 计算器上的平均、最小和最大 IOL 功率；Seitz/Speicher/Savini（Triple-S）公式；以及基于 Holladay 1 和 SRK/T 公式的 Schuster/Schanzlin-Thomas-Purcell（SToP）公式。根据 AL 将 IOL 功率（第 1 组：25.0mm≤AL<28.0mm 和第 2 组：AL≥28.0mm）计算为两组：25.0mm≤AL<28.0mm 和 AL≥28.0mm。
共纳入 64 只眼。在整个样本和亚组中，最小、Barrett TKNH、SToP（SRK/T）和 Triple-S 公式均获得了良好的效果，导致中位数绝对误差、平均绝对误差和预测误差在±0.5 屈光度（D）内的眼比例相似。在整个样本中，Haigis-L 和最大公式的绝对误差明显高于最小、SToP（SRK/T）和 Barrett TKNH 公式。最大公式的±0.5D 内眼的比例也明显低于 Barrett TKNH 和 SToP（SRK/T）公式（15.6%比 50%和 51.5%，所有 P<.05，Bonferroni 调整）。
通过无历史 IOL 公式预测远视屈光眼的 EDoF IOL 功率仍然具有挑战性。当 AL≥25.0mm 时，Barrett TKNH、Triple-S、最小和 SToP（SRK/T）公式的准确性最高，而当 AL≥28.0mm 时，推荐使用 Barrett TKNH 和 SToP（SRK/T）公式。
