Lin Yongdong, Yin Yanlin, Huang Chukai, Ng Tsz Kin, Qiu Kunliang, Ma Yueting, Ma Di
Joint Shantou International Eye Center of Shantou University and The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Dong Xia Road, Shantou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Int Ophthalmol. 2024 Dec 9;45(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4.
This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas-including Kane, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis standard, Haigis optimized, Holladay 1, Olsen, Barrett Universal II-in primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) eyes undergoing cataract surgery combined with goniosynechialysis (GSL).
Preoperative biometric data were obtained using the OA-2000. The preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD) was categorized into two subgroups: < 2.50 mm and 2.50 to 3.50 mm. The predictive accuracy of the formulas was assessed using the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and proportions of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D. Differences in absolute error among the various formulas were examined utilizing the Friedman test. In the case of a significant result, post hoc analysis was conducted employing the Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction.
A total of 141 eyes of 141 PACG patients were included in the analysis. The standard deviations of the PE, ranked from lowest to highest, were as follows: Holladay 1 (0.67), Kane (0.69), EVO 2.0 (0.71), SRK/T (0.71), Hoffer Q (0.72), Haigis standard (0.74), Haigis optimized (0.76), Olsen (0.77), Barrett Universal II (0.79). Statistically significant differences in absolute refractive errors among the formulas were observed (P = 0.001). Kane formula demonstrated the lowest MedAE (0.34), and the highest percentages of eyes within ± 0.25D (35.46%) and ± 1.00D (89.36%), while EVO 2.0 had the highest percentages within ± 0.50D (65.25%). In the ACD < 2.50 mm subgroup, MedAE differed significantly among formulas (P = 0.001). The Holladay 1 formula had the lowest MedAE (0.33), followed by Kane (0.34), EVO 2.0 (0.37). In the 2.50 ≤ ACD < 3.50 mm subgroup, refractive errors showed no statistically significant differences. Additionally, the percentages within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D, ± 0.75D, and ± 1.00D demonstrated no significant differences in both subgroups (all P > 0.05).
Among the nine formulas, Kane, Holladay 1, and EVO 2.0 demonstrated superior refractive outcomes in PACG eyes.
本研究旨在评估人工晶状体（IOL）屈光力计算公式——包括凯恩公式、正视化验证光学（EVO）2.0公式、SRK/T公式、霍夫尔Q公式、海吉斯标准公式、海吉斯优化公式、霍拉迪1公式、奥尔森公式、巴雷特通用II公式——在接受白内障手术联合房角粘连分离术（GSL）的原发性闭角型青光眼（PACG）眼中的准确性。
使用OA - 2000获取术前生物测量数据。术前前房深度（ACD）分为两个亚组：＜2.50mm和2.50至3.50mm。使用平均预测误差（PE）、平均绝对误差（MAE）、中位数绝对误差（MedAE）以及±0.25D、±0.50D、±0.75D和±1.00D范围内的眼比例来评估公式的预测准确性。利用弗里德曼检验检查各种公式之间绝对误差的差异。若结果具有显著性，则采用经邦费罗尼校正的威尔科克森检验进行事后分析。
分析纳入了141例PACG患者的141只眼。PE的标准差从低到高依次为：霍拉迪1公式（0.67）、凯恩公式（0.69）、EVO 2.0公式（0.71）、SRK/T公式（0.71）、霍夫尔Q公式（0.72）、海吉斯标准公式（0.74）、海吉斯优化公式（0.76）、奥尔森公式（0.77）、巴雷特通用II公式（0.79）。观察到公式之间绝对屈光误差存在统计学显著差异（P = 0.001）。凯恩公式的MedAE最低（0.34），在±0.25D（35.46%）和±1.00D（89.36%）范围内的眼比例最高，而EVO 2.0公式在±0.50D范围内的眼比例最高（65.25%）。在ACD＜2.50mm亚组中，公式之间的MedAE差异显著（P = 0.001）。霍拉迪1公式的MedAE最低（0.33），其次是凯恩公式（0.34）、EVO 2.0公式（0.37）。在2.50≤ACD＜3.50mm亚组中，屈光误差无统计学显著差异。此外，两个亚组中±0.25D、±0.50D、±0.75D和±1.00D范围内的眼比例均无显著差异（所有P＞0.05）。
在这九个公式中，凯恩公式（Kane）、霍拉迪1公式（Holladay 1）和EVO 2.0公式在PACG眼中显示出较好的屈光结果。
