比较凯恩公式、巴雷特通用II公式、希尔-径向基函数公式、正视化验证光学公式和拉达斯超级公式的人工晶状体屈光力计算公式的准确性。
Comparing the Accuracy of the Kane, Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, Emmetropia Verifying Optical, and Ladas Super Formula Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas.
作者信息
Moshirfar Majid, Sulit Christian A, Brown Alex H, Irwin Chase, Ronquillo Yasmyne C, Hoopes Phillip C
机构信息
Hoopes Vision Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA.
John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
出版信息
Clin Ophthalmol. 2023 Sep 7;17:2643-2652. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S417865. eCollection 2023.
PURPOSE
To assess the accuracy of five new-generation intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) Formula, Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBF), Kane Formula, and Ladas Super Formula (LSF).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
This is a retrospective single-surgeon study from a refractive clinic and clinical research center in Draper, UT, USA. The primary outcome measures were mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE). Secondary outcome measures were the standard deviation (SD) of each formula's refractive prediction errors (RPE) and the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D. Refractive predictions were compared to the postoperative spherical equivalent to determine the RPE for each formula. RPEs were optimized, and MAE, MedAE, SD of the AME, and percent of eyes achieving RPEs within the specified ranges of ±0.125 D, ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.0 D were calculated. Subgroup analysis between different axial lengths was attempted but yielded insufficient statistical power to draw meaningful conclusions.
RESULTS
A total of 103 eyes of 103 patients were included in our study after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to 606 eyes from 2019 to 2021. Formulas ranked in ascending order by MAE were Kane, EVO, BUII, Hill-RBF, and LSF. The ascending rankings of MedAE were Kane, BUII, Hill-RBF, EVO, Ladas. Kane had a significantly lower MAE than Hill-RBF (p<0.001). EVO had the lowest SD of AMEs and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D. According to heteroscedastic testing, EVO also had a statistically significant lower SD than Hill-RBF.
CONCLUSION
Kane was the most accurate formula in terms of MAE and MedAE. EVO and BUII achieved marginally higher MAEs than Kane, suggesting these three formulas are comparable in performance. With the exception EVO and Hill-RBF, the heteroscedastic test yielded no significant differences in SD between the formulas. Although there were multiple statistically significant differences between the formulas in terms of MAE, MedAE, and SD, these differences may not be appreciable clinically. Lastly, there were no statistically significant differences in the percent of eyes with RPEs within ±0.50 D, suggesting similar clinical performance between formulas.
目的
评估五种新一代人工晶状体（IOL）屈光力计算公式的准确性：巴雷特通用二代（BUII）、正视眼验证光学（EVO）公式、希尔-径向基函数（Hill-RBF）、凯恩公式和拉达斯超级公式（LSF）。
患者与方法
这是一项来自美国犹他州德雷珀市一家屈光诊所和临床研究中心的回顾性单术者研究。主要观察指标为平均绝对误差（MAE）和中位数绝对误差（MedAE）。次要观察指标为各公式屈光预测误差（RPE）的标准差（SD）以及屈光误差在±0.50D范围内的眼数百分比。将屈光预测值与术后等效球镜度进行比较，以确定每个公式的RPE。对RPE进行优化，并计算MAE、MedAE、AME的SD以及屈光误差在指定范围±0.125D、±0.25D、±0.50D、±0.75D、±1.0D内的眼数百分比。尝试对不同眼轴长度进行亚组分析，但统计效力不足，无法得出有意义的结论。
结果
在对2019年至2021年的606只眼应用纳入和排除标准后，我们的研究共纳入了103例患者的103只眼。按MAE升序排列的公式依次为凯恩公式、EVO公式、BUII公式、Hill-RBF公式和LSF公式。MedAE的升序排列依次为凯恩公式、BUII公式、Hill-RBF公式、EVO公式、拉达斯公式。凯恩公式的MAE显著低于Hill-RBF公式（p<0.001）。EVO公式的AME标准差最低，屈光误差在±0.50D范围内的眼数百分比最高。根据异方差检验，EVO公式的SD在统计学上也显著低于Hill-RBF公式。
结论
就MAE和MedAE而言，凯恩公式是最准确的公式。EVO公式和BUII公式的MAE略高于凯恩公式，表明这三个公式在性能上具有可比性。除EVO公式和Hill-RBF公式外，异方差检验显示各公式之间的SD无显著差异。尽管各公式在MAE、MedAE和SD方面存在多个统计学上的显著差异，但这些差异在临床上可能并不明显。最后，屈光误差在±0.50D范围内的眼数百分比无统计学显著差异，表明各公式的临床表现相似。
Zotero 插件