AIM:To investigate the binocular intraocular lens(IOL)power difference in eyes with short,normal,and long axial lengths(AL)using Lenstar LS 900 optical biometry.METHODS:A total of 716(1432 eyes)participants were inclu...AIM:To investigate the binocular intraocular lens(IOL)power difference in eyes with short,normal,and long axial lengths(AL)using Lenstar LS 900 optical biometry.METHODS:A total of 716(1432 eyes)participants were included.The groups were categorized into short(group A:AL<22 mm),normal(group B:22 mm≤AL≤25 mm),and long AL groups(group C:AL>25 mm).The central corneal thickness(CCT),anterior chamber depth(ACD),lens thickness(LT),AL,anterior corneal keratometry,whiteto-white(WTW),pupil diameter(PD),as well as IOL power calculated using embedded Barrett formula were assessed.Bland-Altman plots were used to test the agreement of the binocular parameters.RESULTS:In group A,the CCT of the right eye was significantly thinner than that of the left eye(P=0.044)with a difference of-2±8μm[95%limits of agreement(LoA),-17.8 to 13.2μm].For group B,the PD and IOL power in the right eye were significantly lower than those of the left eye(P=0.001,<0.001)with a difference of-0.05±0.32 mm(95%LoA,-0.68 to 0.58 mm)and-0.18±1.01 D(95%LoA,-2.2 to 1.8 D).The AL of right eye was longer than that of the left eye(P=0.002)with a difference of 0.04±0.25 mm(95%Lo A,-0.45 to 0.52 mm).No significant difference was observed for all the binocular parameters in group C.The percentage of participants with binocular IOL power difference within±0.5 D were 62%(31/50),68.3%(339/496),and 38.8%(66/170)in groups A,B,and C,respectively.CONCLUSION:The binocular parameters related to IOL power are in good agreement,but the binocular IOL power difference of more than half of participants with long AL is more than 0.50 D.展开更多
Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes ...Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes of 1,169 Japanese patients who received a single model of monofocal IOL(SN60WF,Alcon)at Miyata Eye Hospital were reviewed and analyzed.Using biometric metrics and postoperative refractions of 1211 eyes of 769 patients,constants of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas were optimized.The SRK/T formula was adapted using a support vector regressor.Prediction errors in the use of adapted formulas as well as the SRK/T,Haigis,Hill-RBF and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated with data from 395 eyes of 395 distinct patients.Mean prediction errors,median absolute errors,and percentages of eyes within±0.25 D,±0.50 D,and±1.00 D,and over+0.50 D of errors were compared among formulas.Results:The mean prediction errors in the use of the SRT/K and adapted formulas were smaller than the use of other formulas(P<0.001).In the absolute errors,the Hill-RBF and adapted methods were better than others.The performance of the Barrett Universal II was not better than the others for the patient group.There were the least eyes with hyperopic refractive errors(16.5%)in the use of the adapted formula.Conclusions:Adapting IOL power calculations using machine learning technology with data from a particular patient group was effective and promising.展开更多
Background:This review aims to explain the reasons why intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation is challenging in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and what solutions are currently available to obtain more a...Background:This review aims to explain the reasons why intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation is challenging in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and what solutions are currently available to obtain more accurate results.Review:After IOL implantation in eyes with previous LASIK,PRK or RK,a refractive surprise can occur because (i)the altered ratio between the anterior and posterior corneal surface makes the keratometric index invalid;(ii)the corneal curvature radius is measured out of the optical zone;and (iii)the effective lens position is erroneously predicted if such a prediction is based on the post-refractive surgery corneal curvature.Different methods are currently available to obtain the best refractive outcomes in these eyes,even when the perioperative data(i.e.preoperative corneal power and surgically induced refractive change)are not known.In this review,we describe the most accurate methods based on our clinical studies.Conclusions:IOL power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery can be calculated with a variety of methods that lead to relatively accurate outcomes,with 60 to 70%of eyes showing a prediction error within 0.50 diopters.展开更多
AIM : To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens(IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation...AIM : To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens(IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and the prediction of the effective lens position(ELP).METHODS: Retrospective study including a total of 25 eyes of 13 patients(age, 50 to 83y) with previous cataract surgery with implantation of the Lentis Mplus LS-312 IOL(Oculentis Gmb H, Germany). In all cases, an adjusted IOL power(P IOLadj) was calculated based on Gaussian optics using a variable keratometric index value(n kadj) for the estimation of the corneal power(P kadj) and on a new value for ELP(ELP adj) obtained by multiple regression analysis.This P IOLadj was compared with the IOL power implanted(P IOLReal) and the value proposed by three conventional formulas(Haigis, Hoffer Q and Holladay Ⅰ).RESULTS: P IOLReal was not significantly different than P IOLadj and Holladay IOL power(P 】0.05). In the Bland and Altman analysis, P IOLadj showed lower mean difference(-0.07 D) and limits of agreement(of 1.47 and-1.61 D)when compared to P IOLReal than the IOL power value obtained with the Holladay formula. Furthermore, ELP adj was significantly lower than ELP calculated with other conventional formulas(P 【0.01) and was found to be dependent on axial length, anterior chamber depth and P kadj. CONCLUSION: Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the multifocal IOL Lentis Mplus LS-312 can be optimized by minimizing thekeratometric error and by estimating ELP using a mathematical expression dependent on anatomical factors.展开更多
Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes ...Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes of 1,169 Japanese patients who received a single model of monofocal IOL(SN60WF,Alcon)at Miyata Eye Hospital were reviewed and analyzed.Using biometric metrics and postoperative refractions of 1211 eyes of 769 patients,constants of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas were optimized.The SRK/T formula was adapted using a support vector regressor.Prediction errors in the use of adapted formulas as well as the SRK/T,Haigis,Hill-RBF and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated with data from 395 eyes of 395 distinct patients.Mean prediction errors,median absolute errors,and percentages of eyes within±0.25 D,±0.50 D,and±1.00 D,and over+0.50 D of errors were compared among formulas.Results:The mean prediction errors in the use of the SRT/K and adapted formulas were smaller than the use of other formulas(P<0.001).In the absolute errors,the Hill-RBF and adapted methods were better than others.The performance of the Barrett Universal II was not better than the others for the patient group.There were the least eyes with hyperopic refractive errors(16.5%)in the use of the adapted formula.Conclusions:Adapting IOL power calculations using machine learning technology with data from a particular patient group was effective and promising.展开更多
This review summarises the current evidence base and provides guidelines for obtaining good refractive outcomes following cataract surgery. Important background information is also provided. In summary, the requiremen...This review summarises the current evidence base and provides guidelines for obtaining good refractive outcomes following cataract surgery. Important background information is also provided. In summary, the requirements are:(1) standardisation of biometry equipment used for axial length and keratometry measurement and the use of optical or immersion ultrasound biometry;(2) sutureless cataract surgery with "in the bag" intraocular lens(IOL) placement;(3) an appropriate 3rd, 4th or 5th Generation IOL power formula should be used;(4) IOL formula constants must be optimized;(5) under certain conditions, the refractive outcome of the 2nd eye can be improved based on the refractive error of the first eye; and(6) results should be audited for refinement and to ensure that standards are met.展开更多
Purpose:To evaluate the influence of corneal ablation patterns on the prediction error after cataract surgery in postmyopic-LASIK eyes.Methods:Eighty-three post-myopic-LASIK eyes of 83 patients that underwent uneventf...Purpose:To evaluate the influence of corneal ablation patterns on the prediction error after cataract surgery in postmyopic-LASIK eyes.Methods:Eighty-three post-myopic-LASIK eyes of 83 patients that underwent uneventful cataract surgery were retrospectively included.Predicted postoperative spherical equivalence(SE)was calculated for the implanted lens using the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formula.Prediction error at one month postsurgery was calculated as actual SE minus predicted SE.For each eye,area and decentration of the ablation zone was measured using the tangential curvature map.The associations between prediction errors and corneal ablation patterns were investigated.Results:The mean prediction error was-0.83±1.00 D with the Haigis-L formula and-1.00±0.99 D with the Barrett True-K formula.Prediction error was positively correlated with keratometry(K)value and negatively correlated with ablation zone area using either formula,and negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone using the Barrett True-K formula(all P<0.05).In the K<37.08 D group,prediction error was negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone with both formulas(all P<0.05).Multivariate analysis showed that with the Haigis-L formula,prediction error was associated with axial length(AL),K value and decentration,and with the Barrett True-K formula,prediction error was associated with AL and decentration(all P<0.05).Conclusion:A flatter cornea,larger corneal ablation zone and greater decentration will lead to more myopic prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.展开更多
Background:Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in ophthalmology.Biometry data and accurate intraocular lens(IOL)calculations are very important in achieving the desired refractive outcomes.The aim o...Background:Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in ophthalmology.Biometry data and accurate intraocular lens(IOL)calculations are very important in achieving the desired refractive outcomes.The aim of this study was to compare measurements using a new optical low coherence reflectometry(OLCR)biometer(OA-2000)and the gold standard partial coherence interferometry(PCI)optical biometer(IOLMaster 500).Methods:Ocular biometry of cataract patients were measured by the OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 to compare keratometry(K),axial length(AL),anterior chamber depth(ACD),white-to-white(WTW)diameter,and IOL power using the SRK/T formula.Results:One hundred and two eyes of 68 cataract patients were evaluated with the two optical biometers.The mean values of the AL,K,ACD,and WTW differed very little(OCLR biometer,23.12 mm,44.50 diopters(D),3.06,and 11.64 mm,respectively;PCI biometer,23.18 mm,44.6 D,3.15,and 11.86 mm,respectively),but the differences were significant(all,p≤0.05).The AL,K,and ACD showed excellent correlations(r=0.999,0.980,and 0.824,respectively;all p<0.001);however,there was a weak correlation of the WTW diameter between the two devices(r=0.256).The IOL powers using the SRK-T formula derived from both instruments were very similar,with an excellent correlation(r=0.989).The mean difference between the two instruments was 0.32 D.Conclusions:The OLCR biometer showed very a strong agreement with the standard PCI optical biometer for almost all ocular biometry measurements,except for the WTW diameter.Trial registration:TCTR20160614003;date 06/09/2016;‘retrospectively registered’.展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.81971697No.81501544)+1 种基金Shanxi Scholarship Council of China(No.2021-174)the Research Funding of Shanxi Eye Hospital(No.B201804)。
文摘AIM:To investigate the binocular intraocular lens(IOL)power difference in eyes with short,normal,and long axial lengths(AL)using Lenstar LS 900 optical biometry.METHODS:A total of 716(1432 eyes)participants were included.The groups were categorized into short(group A:AL<22 mm),normal(group B:22 mm≤AL≤25 mm),and long AL groups(group C:AL>25 mm).The central corneal thickness(CCT),anterior chamber depth(ACD),lens thickness(LT),AL,anterior corneal keratometry,whiteto-white(WTW),pupil diameter(PD),as well as IOL power calculated using embedded Barrett formula were assessed.Bland-Altman plots were used to test the agreement of the binocular parameters.RESULTS:In group A,the CCT of the right eye was significantly thinner than that of the left eye(P=0.044)with a difference of-2±8μm[95%limits of agreement(LoA),-17.8 to 13.2μm].For group B,the PD and IOL power in the right eye were significantly lower than those of the left eye(P=0.001,<0.001)with a difference of-0.05±0.32 mm(95%LoA,-0.68 to 0.58 mm)and-0.18±1.01 D(95%LoA,-2.2 to 1.8 D).The AL of right eye was longer than that of the left eye(P=0.002)with a difference of 0.04±0.25 mm(95%Lo A,-0.45 to 0.52 mm).No significant difference was observed for all the binocular parameters in group C.The percentage of participants with binocular IOL power difference within±0.5 D were 62%(31/50),68.3%(339/496),and 38.8%(66/170)in groups A,B,and C,respectively.CONCLUSION:The binocular parameters related to IOL power are in good agreement,but the binocular IOL power difference of more than half of participants with long AL is more than 0.50 D.
文摘Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes of 1,169 Japanese patients who received a single model of monofocal IOL(SN60WF,Alcon)at Miyata Eye Hospital were reviewed and analyzed.Using biometric metrics and postoperative refractions of 1211 eyes of 769 patients,constants of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas were optimized.The SRK/T formula was adapted using a support vector regressor.Prediction errors in the use of adapted formulas as well as the SRK/T,Haigis,Hill-RBF and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated with data from 395 eyes of 395 distinct patients.Mean prediction errors,median absolute errors,and percentages of eyes within±0.25 D,±0.50 D,and±1.00 D,and over+0.50 D of errors were compared among formulas.Results:The mean prediction errors in the use of the SRT/K and adapted formulas were smaller than the use of other formulas(P<0.001).In the absolute errors,the Hill-RBF and adapted methods were better than others.The performance of the Barrett Universal II was not better than the others for the patient group.There were the least eyes with hyperopic refractive errors(16.5%)in the use of the adapted formula.Conclusions:Adapting IOL power calculations using machine learning technology with data from a particular patient group was effective and promising.
基金The contribution of G.B.Fondazione Bietti IRCCS was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and Fondazione Roma.
文摘Background:This review aims to explain the reasons why intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation is challenging in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and what solutions are currently available to obtain more accurate results.Review:After IOL implantation in eyes with previous LASIK,PRK or RK,a refractive surprise can occur because (i)the altered ratio between the anterior and posterior corneal surface makes the keratometric index invalid;(ii)the corneal curvature radius is measured out of the optical zone;and (iii)the effective lens position is erroneously predicted if such a prediction is based on the post-refractive surgery corneal curvature.Different methods are currently available to obtain the best refractive outcomes in these eyes,even when the perioperative data(i.e.preoperative corneal power and surgically induced refractive change)are not known.In this review,we describe the most accurate methods based on our clinical studies.Conclusions:IOL power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery can be calculated with a variety of methods that lead to relatively accurate outcomes,with 60 to 70%of eyes showing a prediction error within 0.50 diopters.
文摘AIM : To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens(IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and the prediction of the effective lens position(ELP).METHODS: Retrospective study including a total of 25 eyes of 13 patients(age, 50 to 83y) with previous cataract surgery with implantation of the Lentis Mplus LS-312 IOL(Oculentis Gmb H, Germany). In all cases, an adjusted IOL power(P IOLadj) was calculated based on Gaussian optics using a variable keratometric index value(n kadj) for the estimation of the corneal power(P kadj) and on a new value for ELP(ELP adj) obtained by multiple regression analysis.This P IOLadj was compared with the IOL power implanted(P IOLReal) and the value proposed by three conventional formulas(Haigis, Hoffer Q and Holladay Ⅰ).RESULTS: P IOLReal was not significantly different than P IOLadj and Holladay IOL power(P 】0.05). In the Bland and Altman analysis, P IOLadj showed lower mean difference(-0.07 D) and limits of agreement(of 1.47 and-1.61 D)when compared to P IOLReal than the IOL power value obtained with the Holladay formula. Furthermore, ELP adj was significantly lower than ELP calculated with other conventional formulas(P 【0.01) and was found to be dependent on axial length, anterior chamber depth and P kadj. CONCLUSION: Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the multifocal IOL Lentis Mplus LS-312 can be optimized by minimizing thekeratometric error and by estimating ELP using a mathematical expression dependent on anatomical factors.
文摘Background:To examine the effectiveness of the use of machine learning for adapting an intraocular lens(IOL)power calculation for a patient group.Methods:In this retrospective study,the clinical records of 1,611 eyes of 1,169 Japanese patients who received a single model of monofocal IOL(SN60WF,Alcon)at Miyata Eye Hospital were reviewed and analyzed.Using biometric metrics and postoperative refractions of 1211 eyes of 769 patients,constants of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas were optimized.The SRK/T formula was adapted using a support vector regressor.Prediction errors in the use of adapted formulas as well as the SRK/T,Haigis,Hill-RBF and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated with data from 395 eyes of 395 distinct patients.Mean prediction errors,median absolute errors,and percentages of eyes within±0.25 D,±0.50 D,and±1.00 D,and over+0.50 D of errors were compared among formulas.Results:The mean prediction errors in the use of the SRT/K and adapted formulas were smaller than the use of other formulas(P<0.001).In the absolute errors,the Hill-RBF and adapted methods were better than others.The performance of the Barrett Universal II was not better than the others for the patient group.There were the least eyes with hyperopic refractive errors(16.5%)in the use of the adapted formula.Conclusions:Adapting IOL power calculations using machine learning technology with data from a particular patient group was effective and promising.
文摘This review summarises the current evidence base and provides guidelines for obtaining good refractive outcomes following cataract surgery. Important background information is also provided. In summary, the requirements are:(1) standardisation of biometry equipment used for axial length and keratometry measurement and the use of optical or immersion ultrasound biometry;(2) sutureless cataract surgery with "in the bag" intraocular lens(IOL) placement;(3) an appropriate 3rd, 4th or 5th Generation IOL power formula should be used;(4) IOL formula constants must be optimized;(5) under certain conditions, the refractive outcome of the 2nd eye can be improved based on the refractive error of the first eye; and(6) results should be audited for refinement and to ensure that standards are met.
基金This work was supported by research grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of the People's Republic of China(Grant Nos.82122017,81870642,81970780 and 81670835)Shanghai High Myopia Study,Science and Technology Innovation Action Plan of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission(Grant Nos.19441900700 and 21S31904900)+6 种基金National Key R&D Program of China(Grant No.2018YFC0116800)the Outstanding Youth Medical Talents Program of Shanghai Health and Family Planning Commission(Grant No.2017YQ011)the Shanghai Talent Development Fund(Grant No.201604)Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Center(Grant Nos.SHDC12019X08 and SHDC2020CR4078)Double-E Plan of Eye&ENT Hospital(SYA202006)the WIT120 Research Project of Shanghai(Grant No.2018ZHYL0220)the Shanghai Municipal Key Clinical Specialty Program(Grant No.shslczdzko1901).
文摘Purpose:To evaluate the influence of corneal ablation patterns on the prediction error after cataract surgery in postmyopic-LASIK eyes.Methods:Eighty-three post-myopic-LASIK eyes of 83 patients that underwent uneventful cataract surgery were retrospectively included.Predicted postoperative spherical equivalence(SE)was calculated for the implanted lens using the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formula.Prediction error at one month postsurgery was calculated as actual SE minus predicted SE.For each eye,area and decentration of the ablation zone was measured using the tangential curvature map.The associations between prediction errors and corneal ablation patterns were investigated.Results:The mean prediction error was-0.83±1.00 D with the Haigis-L formula and-1.00±0.99 D with the Barrett True-K formula.Prediction error was positively correlated with keratometry(K)value and negatively correlated with ablation zone area using either formula,and negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone using the Barrett True-K formula(all P<0.05).In the K<37.08 D group,prediction error was negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone with both formulas(all P<0.05).Multivariate analysis showed that with the Haigis-L formula,prediction error was associated with axial length(AL),K value and decentration,and with the Barrett True-K formula,prediction error was associated with AL and decentration(all P<0.05).Conclusion:A flatter cornea,larger corneal ablation zone and greater decentration will lead to more myopic prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.
文摘Background:Cataract surgery is the most common surgical procedure in ophthalmology.Biometry data and accurate intraocular lens(IOL)calculations are very important in achieving the desired refractive outcomes.The aim of this study was to compare measurements using a new optical low coherence reflectometry(OLCR)biometer(OA-2000)and the gold standard partial coherence interferometry(PCI)optical biometer(IOLMaster 500).Methods:Ocular biometry of cataract patients were measured by the OA-2000 and IOLMaster 500 to compare keratometry(K),axial length(AL),anterior chamber depth(ACD),white-to-white(WTW)diameter,and IOL power using the SRK/T formula.Results:One hundred and two eyes of 68 cataract patients were evaluated with the two optical biometers.The mean values of the AL,K,ACD,and WTW differed very little(OCLR biometer,23.12 mm,44.50 diopters(D),3.06,and 11.64 mm,respectively;PCI biometer,23.18 mm,44.6 D,3.15,and 11.86 mm,respectively),but the differences were significant(all,p≤0.05).The AL,K,and ACD showed excellent correlations(r=0.999,0.980,and 0.824,respectively;all p<0.001);however,there was a weak correlation of the WTW diameter between the two devices(r=0.256).The IOL powers using the SRK-T formula derived from both instruments were very similar,with an excellent correlation(r=0.989).The mean difference between the two instruments was 0.32 D.Conclusions:The OLCR biometer showed very a strong agreement with the standard PCI optical biometer for almost all ocular biometry measurements,except for the WTW diameter.Trial registration:TCTR20160614003;date 06/09/2016;‘retrospectively registered’.