Pantanelli Seth M, Hatch Kathryn, Lin Charles C, Steigleman W Allan, Al-Mohtaseb Zaina, Rose-Nussbaumer Jennifer R, Santhiago Marcony R, Keenan Tiarnán D L, Kim Stephen J, Jacobs Deborah S, Schallhorn Julie M
Department of Ophthalmology, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Cornea and Refractive Surgery Service, Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ophthalmology. 2025 Feb;132(2):238-252. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.08.007. Epub 2024 Oct 4.
To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios.
Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III.
Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas.
Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.
评估已发表的文献，比较术中像差仪（IA）与基于术前生物测量的公式在各种临床情况下人工晶状体（IOL）屈光力计算准确性方面的差异。
于2022年8月、2023年7月和2024年2月在PubMed数据库中进行文献检索，分别识别出157篇、18篇和6篇引用文献。对这些文献进行摘要形式的审查，选择61篇文章进行全文审查。其中，29篇符合纳入本评估的标准。专家方法学家小组为每篇文章指定了证据等级；4篇被评为I级，19篇被评为II级，6篇被评为III级。
在最小化等效球镜（SE）屈光不正方面，术中像差仪的表现优于传统的屈光公式，包括海吉斯公式、霍弗Q公式、霍拉迪公式和SRK/T公式，与巴雷特通用II公式和希尔 - 径向基函数（Hill-RBF）公式相似。对于散光型人工晶状体，IA优于仅考虑角膜前表面散光的公式，与巴雷特散光计算器（BTC）等经验性考虑角膜后表面贡献的公式相似。在有角膜屈光手术史的眼中，IA的表现与巴雷特True-K公式相似，略优于其他测试方法，包括海吉斯-L公式、沙马斯公式和王 - 科赫 - 马洛尼公式。
术中像差仪与现代屈光公式，包括巴雷特通用II公式、希尔-RBF公式、BTC公式和巴雷特True-K公式，具有良好的一致性。在有或没有角膜屈光手术史的眼中，它比传统的基于屈光的IOL屈光力计算公式具有更高的准确性。
专有或商业披露信息可在参考文献之后找到。
