Xuhua Tan1, Jiaqing Zhang1, Yi Zhu1, Jingmin Xu1, Xiaozhang Qiu1, Guangyao Yang1, Zhenzhen Liu1, Lixia Luo2, Yizhi Liu1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510623, China. 2. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510623, China. Electronic address: luolixia@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the prediction accuracy of new intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane and Ladas Super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) with Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment in vitrectomized eyes. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case-series study. METHODS: 111 eyes of 111 patients underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and enVista MX60 implantation following vitrectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups according to whether the vitreous cavity was filled with silicone oil. The performance of each formula was evaluated with or without lens constant optimization. RESULTS: Before lens constants optimization, the mean prediction errors (MEs) of all formulas were statistically different from zero (0.14-0.46D) in vitrectomized eyes, except for the Kane formula. The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis had relatively lower mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) with optimized constants. No significant systemic bias was found in new formulas for vitrectomized eyes with AL over 26 mm (P>0.05). The Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 displayed significantly hyperopic shift (0.39 and 0.51D) for long eyes, which was corrected by the WK adjustment. There were no significant differences in the prediction accuracy of all formulas among 4 subgroups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis displayed comparable performance in vitrectomized eyes with optimized constants. In vitrectomized highly myopic eyes, the new formulas and traditional formulas with WK adjustment exhibited satisfactory prediction accuracy. Silicone oil tamponade did not affect the prediction accuracy of formulas using IOLMaster 700.
PURPOSE: To compare the prediction accuracy of new intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane and Ladas Super formula) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) with Wang-Koch (WK) axial length (AL) adjustment in vitrectomized eyes. DESIGN: Retrospective consecutive case-series study. METHODS: 111 eyes of 111 patients underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and enVista MX60 implantation following vitrectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups according to whether the vitreous cavity was filled with silicone oil. The performance of each formula was evaluated with or without lens constant optimization. RESULTS: Before lens constants optimization, the mean prediction errors (MEs) of all formulas were statistically different from zero (0.14-0.46D) in vitrectomized eyes, except for the Kane formula. The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis had relatively lower mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) with optimized constants. No significant systemic bias was found in new formulas for vitrectomized eyes with AL over 26 mm (P>0.05). The Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 displayed significantly hyperopic shift (0.39 and 0.51D) for long eyes, which was corrected by the WK adjustment. There were no significant differences in the prediction accuracy of all formulas among 4 subgroups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The BUII, EVO, Kane, and Haigis displayed comparable performance in vitrectomized eyes with optimized constants. In vitrectomized highly myopic eyes, the new formulas and traditional formulas with WK adjustment exhibited satisfactory prediction accuracy. Silicone oil tamponade did not affect the prediction accuracy of formulas using IOLMaster 700.