Jun Zhang1, Jie Shao1, Li Zheng1, Ye Shen2, Xia Zhao1. 1. Ophthalmology, Hangzhou MSK Eye Hospital, Hangzhou, China. 2. Ophthalmology, the First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. idrshen@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. RESULTS: This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). CONCLUSIONS: The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
BACKGROUND:Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. RESULTS: This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). CONCLUSIONS: The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.
Authors: David P Piñero; Vicente J Camps; María L Ramón; Verónica Mateo; Rafael J Pérez-Cambrodí Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Rachele R Penna; Ugo de Sanctis; Martina Catalano; Luca Brusasco; Federico M Grignolo Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: David P Piñero; Roberto Soto-Negro; Pedro Ruiz-Fortes; Rafael J Pérez-Cambrodí; Hideki Fukumitsu Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 1.779