新的霍弗 QST 与 4 个现代精确公式的比较。

Comparison of the new Hoffer QST with 4 modern accurate formulas.

机构信息

From the Ophthalmology Unit, Morgagni-Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy (Taroni); Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California (Hoffer); St. Mary's Eye Center, Santa Monica, California (Hoffer); Department of Translational Medicine, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy (Pellegrini); Department of Ophthalmology, Ospedali Privati Forlì"Villa Igea," Forlì, Italy (Pellegrini); Istituto Internazionale per la Ricerca e Formazione in Oftalmologia (IRFO), Forlì, Italy (Pellegrini); Eye Clinic, S.Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Lupardi); I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy (Savini).

出版信息

J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023 Apr 1;49(4):378-384. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001126.

DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001126

PMID:36729423

Abstract

PURPOSE

To investigate the new Hoffer QST (Savini/Taroni) formula (HQST) and compare it with the original Hoffer Q (HQ) and 4 latest generation formulas.

SETTING

I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Refractive outcomes of the HQST, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, HQ, Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in short (<22 mm) and long (>25 mm) axial length eyes. The SD of the prediction error (PE) was investigated using the heteroscedastic method.

RESULTS

1259 eyes of 1259 patients divided in a White group (n=696), implanted with the AcriSof SN60AT (Alcon Labs), and an Asian group (n=563), implanted with the SN60WF (Alcon Labs), were investigated. In the Asian group, the heteroscedastic method did not disclose any significant difference among the SD of the 4 modern formulas (range from 0.333 to 0.346 D), whereas the SD of the HQ formula (0.384 D) was significantly higher. Compared with the original HQ formula, in both White and Asian groups, the HQST formula avoided the mean myopic PE in short eyes and the mean hyperopic PE in long eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The new HQST formula was superior to the original HQ formula and reached statistical and clinical results comparable with those achieved by the BUII, EVO, Kane, and RBF formulas.

摘要

目的

研究新的 Hoffer QST（Savini/Taroni）公式（HQST），并将其与原始的 Hoffer Q（HQ）和 4 种最新一代公式进行比较。

地点

意大利罗马 I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti 基金会。

设计

回顾性病例系列。

方法

比较了 HQST、Barrett Universal II（BUII）、Emmetropia Verifying Optical（EVO）2.0、HQ、Kane 和 Radial Basis Function（RBF）3.0 公式的屈光结果。在短（<22mm）和长（>25mm）眼轴的眼睛中进行了亚组分析。使用异方差方法研究预测误差（PE）的预测误差（PE）的标准差。

结果

研究了 1259 名患者的 1259 只眼，分为白人组（n=696），植入 Alcon Labs 的 AcriSof SN60AT；亚洲组（n=563），植入 Alcon Labs 的 SN60WF。在亚洲人群中，异方差方法没有揭示 4 种现代公式的 SD 之间存在任何显著差异（范围从 0.333 到 0.346D），而 HQ 公式的 SD（0.384D）明显更高。与原始 HQ 公式相比，在白人和亚洲人群中，HQST 公式避免了短眼的平均近视性 PE 和长眼的平均远视性 PE。