Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Uğurlu,Adem
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Altınkurt,Emre, Ergül,Elif
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802021000500201
Resumo: ABSTRACT Objective To compare the performance of Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas to calculate intraocular lens power in eyes with normal axial length, in terms of predicting target refraction by using partial coherence interferometry technology. Methods Phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were performed in 135 eyes of 135 patients with an axial length between 22 and 24.5 mm. Axial length, keratometry, and anterior chamber depth were measured by intraocular lens Master 500. Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas were used for intraocular lens power calculations. The difference between the expected postoperative refraction and the mean absolute prediction error was calculated for each eye. Statistical significance was evaluated at the level of p<0.05. Results The study included 135 subjects. The mean axial length, anterior chamber depth, keratometry, and intraocular lens power were 23.2±1.2 (22 to 24.5) mm, 3.2±0.4 (2.4 to 4.4) mm, 43.5±1.5 (40.8 to 46.2) diopter, 21.5±1.8 (18.5 to 25.5) diopter, respectively. The mean absolute prediction error for Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function was 0.306±0.291, 0.312±0.257, 0.314±0.268, 0.299±0.206 and 0.308±0.280, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusion The study showed the third-generation (Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical and Hoffer Q), fourth-generation (Barrett Universal II) and new-generation (Kane and Hill-radial basis function) intraocular lens power calculation formulas had similar performances regarding calculation of intraocular lens power to predict target refraction after phacoemulsification in eyes with normal axial length.
id SBO-1_4c1b7e976e54e263a3a7d602a0380c36
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-72802021000500201
network_acronym_str SBO-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulasLenses, intraocularCataractBiometryRefraction, ocularABSTRACT Objective To compare the performance of Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas to calculate intraocular lens power in eyes with normal axial length, in terms of predicting target refraction by using partial coherence interferometry technology. Methods Phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were performed in 135 eyes of 135 patients with an axial length between 22 and 24.5 mm. Axial length, keratometry, and anterior chamber depth were measured by intraocular lens Master 500. Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas were used for intraocular lens power calculations. The difference between the expected postoperative refraction and the mean absolute prediction error was calculated for each eye. Statistical significance was evaluated at the level of p<0.05. Results The study included 135 subjects. The mean axial length, anterior chamber depth, keratometry, and intraocular lens power were 23.2±1.2 (22 to 24.5) mm, 3.2±0.4 (2.4 to 4.4) mm, 43.5±1.5 (40.8 to 46.2) diopter, 21.5±1.8 (18.5 to 25.5) diopter, respectively. The mean absolute prediction error for Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function was 0.306±0.291, 0.312±0.257, 0.314±0.268, 0.299±0.206 and 0.308±0.280, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusion The study showed the third-generation (Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical and Hoffer Q), fourth-generation (Barrett Universal II) and new-generation (Kane and Hill-radial basis function) intraocular lens power calculation formulas had similar performances regarding calculation of intraocular lens power to predict target refraction after phacoemulsification in eyes with normal axial length.Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia2021-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802021000500201Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.80 n.5 2021reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)instacron:SBO10.37039/1982.8551.20210034info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessUğurlu,AdemAltınkurt,EmreErgül,Elifeng2021-09-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-72802021000500201Revistahttps://rbo.emnuvens.com.br/rbo/indexhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpsob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br1982-85510034-7280opendoar:2021-09-22T00:00Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
title Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
spellingShingle Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
Uğurlu,Adem
Lenses, intraocular
Cataract
Biometry
Refraction, ocular
title_short Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
title_full Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
title_fullStr Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
title_sort Comparison of prediction accuracy of five different biometric formulas
author Uğurlu,Adem
author_facet Uğurlu,Adem
Altınkurt,Emre
Ergül,Elif
author_role author
author2 Altınkurt,Emre
Ergül,Elif
author2_role author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Uğurlu,Adem
Altınkurt,Emre
Ergül,Elif
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Lenses, intraocular
Cataract
Biometry
Refraction, ocular
topic Lenses, intraocular
Cataract
Biometry
Refraction, ocular
description ABSTRACT Objective To compare the performance of Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas to calculate intraocular lens power in eyes with normal axial length, in terms of predicting target refraction by using partial coherence interferometry technology. Methods Phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation were performed in 135 eyes of 135 patients with an axial length between 22 and 24.5 mm. Axial length, keratometry, and anterior chamber depth were measured by intraocular lens Master 500. Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function formulas were used for intraocular lens power calculations. The difference between the expected postoperative refraction and the mean absolute prediction error was calculated for each eye. Statistical significance was evaluated at the level of p<0.05. Results The study included 135 subjects. The mean axial length, anterior chamber depth, keratometry, and intraocular lens power were 23.2±1.2 (22 to 24.5) mm, 3.2±0.4 (2.4 to 4.4) mm, 43.5±1.5 (40.8 to 46.2) diopter, 21.5±1.8 (18.5 to 25.5) diopter, respectively. The mean absolute prediction error for Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-radial basis function was 0.306±0.291, 0.312±0.257, 0.314±0.268, 0.299±0.206 and 0.308±0.280, respectively (p>0.05). Conclusion The study showed the third-generation (Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical and Hoffer Q), fourth-generation (Barrett Universal II) and new-generation (Kane and Hill-radial basis function) intraocular lens power calculation formulas had similar performances regarding calculation of intraocular lens power to predict target refraction after phacoemulsification in eyes with normal axial length.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802021000500201
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-72802021000500201
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.37039/1982.8551.20210034
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia v.80 n.5 2021
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
instacron:SBO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
instacron_str SBO
institution SBO
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Oftalmologia (SBO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv sob@sboportal.org.br||rbo@sboportal.org.br
_version_ 1752122339491840000