Evaluation of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical method and a new method of IOL constant optimization

Purpose To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization. Design Retrospective case series. Methods The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of ophthalmology 2024-09, Vol.34 (5), p.1469-1474
Hauptverfasser: Romero-Valero, Daniel, Cárceles, Alicia, Alió, Jorge L, Monera Lucas, Carlos E., Moya Martínez, Alejandro, Martínez-Toldos, Jose Juan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To evaluate the prediction accuracy of 9 IOL power calculation formulas using a heteroscedastic statistical analysis and a novel method for IOL constant optimization. Design Retrospective case series. Methods The LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) was used for the preoperative biometry. The predicted SE refraction of the implanted IOL were calculated for: Barrett Universal II, EVO-2.0, Hill RBF-3.0, Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, PEARL-DGS, SRK-T, Hoffer-Q and Holladay-1. IOL constants were optimized prior to the analysis. A heteroscedastic statistical method was used to compare the standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors (PE). Results Two hundred seventy-eight eyes of 278 patients were included. The SD of the Kane was 0.4214D and was the lowest in this database. The SD of the PE of the Kane and EVO 2.0 were significantly lower than the SRK-T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the PEARL formula was significantly lower than the SRK-T and Hoffer-Q. The SD of the PE of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was not significantly different to the Hill-RBF 2.0, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II and PEARL. No significant difference was found between the SD of the PE of the new generation formulas analysed. Conclusions the lowest SD of the prediction error was provided by Kane, followed by EVO 2.0 and PERL-DGS formulas. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the SD of the PE of new generation formulas. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of these formulas in extreme eyes.
ISSN:1120-6721
1724-6016
DOI:10.1177/11206721241230347