Standard

Оценка точности современных формул расчета интраокулярных линз при невозможности выполнения оптической биометрии. / Белов, Дмитрий Федорович; Даниленко, Е.В.; Николаенко, Вадим Петрович; Потемкин, Виталий Витальевич.

в: Вестник офтальмологии, Том 140, № 2, 2024, стр. 34-39.

Результаты исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхстатьяРецензирование

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

BibTeX

@article{3172044772344b8b9ae2d0e83c3a6b64,
title = "Оценка точности современных формул расчета интраокулярных линз при невозможности выполнения оптической биометрии",
abstract = "Purpose. This study evaluates the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using axial length (AL) data obtained by ultrasound biometry (UBM) compared to the third-generation SRK/T calculator. Material and methods. The study included 230 patients (267 eyes) with severe lens opacities that prevented optical biometry, who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation. IOL power calculation according to the SRK/T formula was based on AL and anterior chamber depth obtained by UBM (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry on the Topcon KR 8800 autorefractometer. To adapt AL for new generation calculators — Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) — the retinal thickness (0.20 mm) was added to the axial length determined by UBM, and then the optical power of the artificial lens was calculated. The mean error and its modulus value were used as criteria for the accuracy of IOL calculation. Results. A significant difference (p=0.008) in the mean IOL calculation error was found between the formulas. Pairwise analysis revealed differences between SRK/T (–0.32±0.58 D) and other formulas — BUII (–0.16±0.52 D; p=0.014), RBF (–0.17±0.51 D; p=0.024), Kane (–0.17±0.52 D; p=0.029), but not with the LSF calculator (–0.19±0.53 D; p=0.071). No significant differences between the formulas were found in terms of mean error modulus (p=0.238). New generation calculators showed a more frequent success in hitting target refraction (within ±1.00 D in more than 95% of cases) than the SRK/T formula (86%). Conclusion. The proposed method of adding 0.20 mm to the AL determined by UBM allows using this parameter in modern IOL calculation formulas and improving the refractive results of PE, especially in eyes with non-standard anterior segment structure.",
keywords = "Barrett Universal II Formula, Hill RBF, IOL calculation, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, intumescent cataract, mature cataract, optical biometry, phacoemulsification, posterior capsular cataract, ultrasound biometry",
author = "Белов, {Дмитрий Федорович} and Е.В. Даниленко and Николаенко, {Вадим Петрович} and Потемкин, {Виталий Витальевич}",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.17116/oftalma202414002134",
language = "русский",
volume = "140",
pages = "34--39",
journal = "Вестник офтальмологии",
issn = "0042-465X",
publisher = "Медицина",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Оценка точности современных формул расчета интраокулярных линз при невозможности выполнения оптической биометрии

AU - Белов, Дмитрий Федорович

AU - Даниленко, Е.В.

AU - Николаенко, Вадим Петрович

AU - Потемкин, Виталий Витальевич

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - Purpose. This study evaluates the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using axial length (AL) data obtained by ultrasound biometry (UBM) compared to the third-generation SRK/T calculator. Material and methods. The study included 230 patients (267 eyes) with severe lens opacities that prevented optical biometry, who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation. IOL power calculation according to the SRK/T formula was based on AL and anterior chamber depth obtained by UBM (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry on the Topcon KR 8800 autorefractometer. To adapt AL for new generation calculators — Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) — the retinal thickness (0.20 mm) was added to the axial length determined by UBM, and then the optical power of the artificial lens was calculated. The mean error and its modulus value were used as criteria for the accuracy of IOL calculation. Results. A significant difference (p=0.008) in the mean IOL calculation error was found between the formulas. Pairwise analysis revealed differences between SRK/T (–0.32±0.58 D) and other formulas — BUII (–0.16±0.52 D; p=0.014), RBF (–0.17±0.51 D; p=0.024), Kane (–0.17±0.52 D; p=0.029), but not with the LSF calculator (–0.19±0.53 D; p=0.071). No significant differences between the formulas were found in terms of mean error modulus (p=0.238). New generation calculators showed a more frequent success in hitting target refraction (within ±1.00 D in more than 95% of cases) than the SRK/T formula (86%). Conclusion. The proposed method of adding 0.20 mm to the AL determined by UBM allows using this parameter in modern IOL calculation formulas and improving the refractive results of PE, especially in eyes with non-standard anterior segment structure.

AB - Purpose. This study evaluates the accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas using axial length (AL) data obtained by ultrasound biometry (UBM) compared to the third-generation SRK/T calculator. Material and methods. The study included 230 patients (267 eyes) with severe lens opacities that prevented optical biometry, who underwent phacoemulsification (PE) with IOL implantation. IOL power calculation according to the SRK/T formula was based on AL and anterior chamber depth obtained by UBM (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry on the Topcon KR 8800 autorefractometer. To adapt AL for new generation calculators — Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill RBF ver. 3.0 (RBF), Kane and Ladas Super Formula (LSF) — the retinal thickness (0.20 mm) was added to the axial length determined by UBM, and then the optical power of the artificial lens was calculated. The mean error and its modulus value were used as criteria for the accuracy of IOL calculation. Results. A significant difference (p=0.008) in the mean IOL calculation error was found between the formulas. Pairwise analysis revealed differences between SRK/T (–0.32±0.58 D) and other formulas — BUII (–0.16±0.52 D; p=0.014), RBF (–0.17±0.51 D; p=0.024), Kane (–0.17±0.52 D; p=0.029), but not with the LSF calculator (–0.19±0.53 D; p=0.071). No significant differences between the formulas were found in terms of mean error modulus (p=0.238). New generation calculators showed a more frequent success in hitting target refraction (within ±1.00 D in more than 95% of cases) than the SRK/T formula (86%). Conclusion. The proposed method of adding 0.20 mm to the AL determined by UBM allows using this parameter in modern IOL calculation formulas and improving the refractive results of PE, especially in eyes with non-standard anterior segment structure.

KW - Barrett Universal II Formula

KW - Hill RBF

KW - IOL calculation

KW - Kane

KW - Ladas Super Formula

KW - intumescent cataract

KW - mature cataract

KW - optical biometry

KW - phacoemulsification

KW - posterior capsular cataract

KW - ultrasound biometry

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/713ee951-c3dd-3c95-af87-b093086bfcf1/

U2 - 10.17116/oftalma202414002134

DO - 10.17116/oftalma202414002134

M3 - статья

VL - 140

SP - 34

EP - 39

JO - Вестник офтальмологии

JF - Вестник офтальмологии

SN - 0042-465X

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 119542479