眼科 ›› 2022, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (2): 114-117.doi: 10.13281/j.cnki.issn.1004-4469.2022.02.007

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

22~25 mm眼轴的浅前房白内障患者术后屈光预测准确性的观察研究

丁宁  冯宇  董喆   

  1. 首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院 北京同仁眼科中心 眼科学与视觉科学北京市重点实验室100730

  • 收稿日期:2021-01-29 出版日期:2022-03-25 发布日期:2022-03-25
  • 通讯作者: 董喆,Email:dongzhe0@126.com

Accuracy of refractive prediction in cataract patients with shallow anterior chamber and 22-25 mm axial lengths

Ding Ning, Feng Yu, Dong Zhe   

  1. Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Beijing 100730, China
  • Received:2021-01-29 Online:2022-03-25 Published:2022-03-25
  • Contact: Dong Zhe, Email: dongzhe0@126.com

摘要: 目的 观察正常或接近正常眼轴的浅前房白内障患者术后的屈光情况,比较不同人工晶状体(IOL)计算公式的预测准确性。设计 回顾性病例系列。研究对象  2020年12月至2021年8月在北京同仁医院白内障中心进行手术的眼轴为22~25 mm的浅前房白内障患者66例(86眼)。方法 术前使用IOL Master 500进行眼生物学参数的检查测量,并使用前节OCT测量手术前后中央前房深度,于术后3个月行主觉验光检查,比较SRK-T、Haigis、Barrett Universal II和Kane公式计算的等效球镜的预测偏差。主要指标 术后IOL度数的平均预测偏差、平均绝对值偏差、绝对偏差中位数以及预测偏差的百分比。结果 术后3个月测量中央前房深度为(3.88±0.61)mm,较术前的(2.34±0.14)mm明显加深(P<0.001)。通过四种公式计算得出的平均屈光偏差均小于±0.25 D。Barrett公式(0.033 D)和Kane公式(-0.040 D)的平均屈光偏差的差异无统计学意义(P=1.000),其余各公式两两比较均有统计学意义。各公式的平均绝对预测偏差中,Barrett公式和Haigis公式(P=0.073)、Barrett公式和Kane公式(P=1.000)的差异无统计学意义,其余公式两两比较差异均有统计学意义。Haigis公式在±0.25 D偏差范围内的术眼百分比最高(30.23%),Barrett公式在±0.50 D偏差范围内的术眼百分比最高(60.47%),但各公式组间比较差异无统计学意义。结论 正常或接近正常眼轴的浅前房白内障患者手术后虽然前房加深,但未出现明显的屈光漂移。说明应用现代生物测量技术和新一代人工晶状体计算公式,提高了预测的准确性。(眼科,2022,31: 114-117)

关键词:  , 前房深度;屈光偏差;眼轴长度;人工晶状体;白内障

Abstract:  Objective To compare the accuracy of 4 intraocular lens calculation formulas in the prediction of postoperative refraction in cataract patients with normal or nearly normal axial lengths (AL) but shallow anterior chamber depths (ACD). Design Retrospective case series. Participants A total of 66 cataract patients (86 eyes) with AL 22~25 mm but shallow and deep ACD in Beijing Tongren Hospital from December 2020 to August 2021. Methods All patients were performed cataract surgery with IOLMaster 500 optical biometry. Preoperative and postoperative ACD were measured. Manifest refraction was performed at 3-month postoperative visit. The performance on 4 formulas with respect to the error in predicted spherical equivalent was compared. Main Outcome Measures The mean prediction errors, mean absolute errors (MAE), median absolute errors and percentage of eyes with refractive prediction errors. Results At 3 months after surgery, the mean postoperative ACD (3.88±0.61 mm) was deeper than preoperative ACD (2.34±0.14 mm) (P<0.001). All formulas had mean prediction error values less than ±0.25 D that were not significantly different. There was no significant difference between Barrett (0.033 D) and Kane formula (-0.040 D) in the mean prediction errors. There was no significant difference in MAE between Barrett and Haigis formula (P=0.073), and between Barrett and Kane formula (P=1.000). The differences between the other formulas were statistically significant. Haigis formula had a highest percentage of eyes (30.23%) within the range of ±0.25 D, while Barrett formula had the highest percentage (60.47%) in the range of ±0.50 D. There were no significant differences between other formulas. Conclusion In eyes with normal or nearly normal AL but shallow ACD, modern biometric technology and new-generation formulas improved refractive prediction results. (Ophthalmol CHN, 2022, 31: 114-117)


Key words:  anterior chamber depth, refractive error, axial length, intraocular lens, cataract