학술논문
Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
이용수 0
- 영문명
- Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
- 발행기관
- 대한안과학회
- 저자명
- Ji Hyun Yoon Woong-Joo Whang
- 간행물 정보
- 『The Korean Journal of Ophthalmology』Vol.37 No.5, 380~386쪽, 전체 7쪽
- 주제분류
- 의약학 > 의학일반
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2023.10.31
4,000원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

국문 초록
영문 초록
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in predicting refractive outcomes after standard cataract surgery.
Methods: The medical records of 203 eyes from 203 patients that received phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Partial coherence interferometry was used to obtain the biometric values. The refractive outcomes of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas were evaluated. Axial length (AL) subgroup analysis was done separately. The correlations between the prediction error calculated by each formula and AL and corneal power were also analyzed.
Results: Overall, there was no significant difference between the absolute prediction errors predicted by the six formulas after adjusting the mean prediction error (p = 0.058). AL subgroup analysis of absolute error also showed that there is no significant difference between the formulas. The BUII and Hill-RBF 3.0 formulas showed a higher percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopters compared to the Hoffer QST formula (p = 0.022 and p = 0.035, respectively). However, there was no significant difference after Bonferroni correction was applied. The BUII formula showed the highest IOL Formula Performance Index and therefore the highest accuracy, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0, Kane, Hill-RBF 3.0, and Hoffer QST formulas. Out of the six formulas, the prediction error calculated by the Hoffer QST was significantly correlated with the AL (p = 0.011). None of the prediction errors calculated by the six formulas showed correlation to the corneal power.
Conclusions: Analysis of the prediction error showed that the six modern IOL power calculation formulas have comparable accuracy overall and across different ranges of AL.
목차
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- Restoration of Corneal Transparency in a Patient with Corneal Scarring Using Mesenchyme Stem Cells: A Case Report
- Fungal Endophthalmitis in a Case of Rhino-Orbital-Cerebral Mucormycosis Treated with 0.02% Intravitreal Liposomal Amphotericin B Injection: A Case Report
- Overt and Massive Spontaneous Subconjunctival Hemorrhage on a Patient with Prolonged International Normalized Ratio on Therapeutic Warfarin: A Case Report
- Influence of Vitreoretinal Surgery on Ocular Surface Dynamics Using Keratograph 5M
- Comparative Evaluation of Matrix Metalloproteinase-9 Immunoassay and Tear Osmolarity Measurement for Diagnosing Severity of Dry Eye Disease
- Improved Intermediate Visual Function with New Monofocal Intraocular Lens in Combined Cataract and Vitrectomy Surgery for Retinal Disease
- Dry Eye Assessment of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Dacryocystorhinostomy for Nasolacrimal Duct Obstruction Combined with Dry Eye Syndrome
- Effect and Safety of Pressure Sensor-equipped Handpiece in Phacoemulsification System
- Comparison of Accuracy of Six Modern Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas
- Clinical Outcomes of Descemet Membrane Endothelial Keratoplasty Using a Preloaded Imported Graft
- Short-term Efficacy and Safety of Intravitreal Brolucizumab Injection for Treatment-Naive Exudate Age-related Macular Degeneration: A Multicenter Study
- One-Year Outcomes of Ab Externo XEN45 Gel Stent Implantation with an Open Conjunctiva Approach in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma
참고문헌
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!
