Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)

BACKGROUND: to assess and compare the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery in eyes with an axial length (AL) shorter than or equal to 22.00 mm. METHODS: a retrospective case series included 100 eyes with an AL ≤ 22.00 mm that underwent uneventful ca...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Vilaltella Ortiz, Magí, Cid-Bertomeu, Pau, Huerva, Valentín
Tipo de documento: artigo
Estado:Versión enviada para evaluación y publicación
Data de publicação:2023
País:España
Recursos:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
Repositório:Repositori Obert UdL
OAI Identifier:oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/465954
Acesso em linha:https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2115435/v1
https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/465954
Access Level:Acceso aberto
Palavra-chave:Intraocular lens power calculation formulas
Short eyes
Cataract surgery
id ES_f7eebf133a5dc4eed0955223cd0bcc5b
oai_identifier_str oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/465954
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)Vilaltella Ortiz, MagíCid-Bertomeu, PauHuerva, ValentínIntraocular lens power calculation formulasShort eyesCataract surgeryBACKGROUND: to assess and compare the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery in eyes with an axial length (AL) shorter than or equal to 22.00 mm. METHODS: a retrospective case series included 100 eyes with an AL ≤ 22.00 mm that underwent uneventful cataract surgery. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated using 10 different IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2, Kane, SRK/T and SuperLadas. The mean absolute prediction error (MAE ± SD) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE ± SD) were calculated after adjusting the mean prediction error (ME) to 0. RESULTS: EVO 2.0 and Kane obtained both the lowest MAE after adjusting the ME to 0 (0.386). Differences in MAE among the different formulas were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Hoffer Q obtained the lowest MedAE (0.292 D) after adjusting the ME to 0, followed very closely by EVO 2.0 (0.298 D) and Kane (0.300 D). CONCLUSIONS: our study reflects a tendency of the EVO 2.0 formula and the Kane formula along with the older Hoffer Q formula, to predict more accurately the refractive outcomes in short eyes that undergo cataract phacoemulsification surgery compared to the other formulas, despite this difference could not be statistically proved.Springer2023info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersionhttps://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2115435/v1https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/465954reponame:Repositori Obert UdL instname:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)InglésVersió preprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02660-yInternational Ophthalmology, 2023, vol. 43, núm. 8, p. 2613-2622cc-by (c) autors, 2023Attribution 4.0 Internationalinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/oai:repositori.udl.cat:10459.1/4659542026-06-24T12:42:17Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
title Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
spellingShingle Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
Vilaltella Ortiz, Magí
Intraocular lens power calculation formulas
Short eyes
Cataract surgery
title_short Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
title_full Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
title_fullStr Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
title_sort Accuracy of 10 IOL power calculation formulas in 100 short eyes (≤ 22 mm)
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Vilaltella Ortiz, Magí
Cid-Bertomeu, Pau
Huerva, Valentín
author Vilaltella Ortiz, Magí
author_facet Vilaltella Ortiz, Magí
Cid-Bertomeu, Pau
Huerva, Valentín
author_role author
author2 Cid-Bertomeu, Pau
Huerva, Valentín
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Intraocular lens power calculation formulas
Short eyes
Cataract surgery
topic Intraocular lens power calculation formulas
Short eyes
Cataract surgery
description BACKGROUND: to assess and compare the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery in eyes with an axial length (AL) shorter than or equal to 22.00 mm. METHODS: a retrospective case series included 100 eyes with an AL ≤ 22.00 mm that underwent uneventful cataract surgery. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated using 10 different IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and 2, Kane, SRK/T and SuperLadas. The mean absolute prediction error (MAE ± SD) and median absolute prediction error (MedAE ± SD) were calculated after adjusting the mean prediction error (ME) to 0. RESULTS: EVO 2.0 and Kane obtained both the lowest MAE after adjusting the ME to 0 (0.386). Differences in MAE among the different formulas were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Hoffer Q obtained the lowest MedAE (0.292 D) after adjusting the ME to 0, followed very closely by EVO 2.0 (0.298 D) and Kane (0.300 D). CONCLUSIONS: our study reflects a tendency of the EVO 2.0 formula and the Kane formula along with the older Hoffer Q formula, to predict more accurately the refractive outcomes in short eyes that undergo cataract phacoemulsification surgery compared to the other formulas, despite this difference could not be statistically proved.
publishDate 2023
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2023
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/submittedVersion
format article
status_str submittedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2115435/v1
https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/465954
url https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2115435/v1
https://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/465954
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Versió preprint del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-023-02660-y
International Ophthalmology, 2023, vol. 43, núm. 8, p. 2613-2622
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv cc-by (c) autors, 2023
Attribution 4.0 International
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
rights_invalid_str_mv cc-by (c) autors, 2023
Attribution 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositori Obert UdL
instname:Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
instname_str Universitat de Lleida (UdL)
reponame_str Repositori Obert UdL
collection Repositori Obert UdL
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869424955013201921
score 15,811543

Registros relacionados