Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas
Do you wish to request the book?
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas
2021
Overview
PurposeTo assess the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, Kane, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Haigis, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T in primary angle-closure disease (PACD).MethodsA total of 129 PACD eyes were enrolled. Prediction refraction was calculated for each formula and compared with actual refraction. Accuracy was determined by formula performance index (FPI), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ± 0.50D. Subgroup analysis was performed according to axial length (AL).ResultsOverall, FPI was ranked as follows: Kane (0.067), RBF 3.0 (0.064), Haigis (0.062), SRK/T (0.060), BUII (0.058), Hoffer Q (0.055), and LSF (0.049). Kane got the highest (71.3%) percentage of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D. In medium AL eyes (22 mm < AL ≤ 25 mm), FPI ranked the same as in total group. MedAEs were equal across all formulas (P = 0.121). In short eyes (AL ≤ 22 mm), FPI was Kane (0.055), RBF 3.0 (0.050), SRK/T (0.050), Haigis (0.049), BUII (0.047), Hoffer Q (0.045), and LSF (0.033). MedAEs were significantly different across all formulas (P = 0.033). Haigis showed the lowest MedAE (0.35 D), Haigis and Kane got the highest percentage (63.6%) of eyes with PE within ± 0.50 D.ConclusionKane outperformed in total PACD eyes; RBF 3.0, Haigis, and SRK/T achieved satisfying performance. When dealing with PACD eyes shorter than 22 mm, Kane achieved the best accuracy. RBF 3.0, SRK/T, Haigis, and BUII achieved comparable outcomes. No formula showed superiority over others for medium AL PACD eyes.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
