眼科 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (4): 295-300.doi: 10.13281/j.cnki.issn.1004-4469.2024.04.011

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

白内障摘除联合玻璃体切除术中5种新型人工晶状体计算公式准确性的前瞻性比较

何渊1  朱静芬2  赵世强1  宋旭东1  刘武1   

  1. 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,北京 100730;
    2上海交通大学医学院,上海 200025
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-16 出版日期:2024-07-25 发布日期:2024-07-18
  • 通讯作者: 刘武,Email:dssxqqhy@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金(T2293730)

Prospective comparison of the accuracy of five new intaocular lens calculation formulas in phacovitrectomy

He Yuan1, Zhu Jingfen2, Zhao Shiqiang1, Song Xudong1, Liu Wu1#br#   

  1. 1Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, Beijing 100730, China; 2Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China
  • Received:2024-03-16 Online:2024-07-25 Published:2024-07-18
  • Contact: Liu Wu, Email: dssxqqhy@163.com
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China (T2293730)

摘要: 目的 比较在白内障联合玻璃体切除(pars plana vitrectomy,PPV)手术中,五种新型人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)计算公式(BU Ⅱ、EVO 2.0、Kane、LSF、以及RBF 3.0)的预测准确性。设计 前瞻性非随机对照研究。研究对象 2021年9月至2022年11月期间因单纯白内障接受白内障摘除联合IOL植入的患者52例(52眼)(对照组),以及因白内障合并全层黄斑裂孔或黄斑前膜行白内障摘除、IOL植入联合PPV术的患者52例(52眼)(研究组)。方法 使用BU Ⅱ公式进行两组患者IOL屈光度计算,检查并记录所有患者术前和术后1个月最佳矫正视力,计算五种IOL计算公式的屈光误差(predictive error,PE)、PE的标准差、平均绝对误差、绝对误差中位数和PE在±0.25 D、±0.50 D、±0.75 D和±1.00 D范围内的眼数百分比。并使用Cooke法进行公式预测性的比较。主要指标 应用五种IOL计算公式后的PE。结果 对照组中,Kane和EVO 2.0公式的PE分别为(0.20±0.39) D及(0.19±0.40) D,呈现远视系统误差(分别为t=3.41,P=0.001,及t=3.60,P=0.001),BU Ⅱ、LSF、及RBF 3.0公式无系统误差。在研究组中,五种公式同0比较均无显著性差异。所有公式在研究组中的标准差、平均绝对误差、绝对误差中位数和PE在±0.25 D、±0.50 D、±0.75 D和±1.00 D范围内的眼数百分比均逊于对照组。经过公式预测性比较,对照组中,Kane公式及LSF公式排名最高(均为2.33),而研究组中,BU Ⅱ公式表现最佳(1.83)。结论 术后1个月时,在研究组中应用BU II、LSF、Kane、EVO 2.0及RBF 3.0公式均未显示出远视或近视漂移,但其公式预测准确性较对照组差,表现为较大的标准差、平均绝对误差及绝对误差中位数,及在所有给定范围内PE的比例均低于对照组。但其中预测准确性表现最优者为BU II公式。(眼科,2024,33: 295-300)

关键词: 白内障, 玻璃体切除术, 人工晶状体计算公式

Abstract: 【Abstract】 Objective To compare the refractive prediction accuracy among five novel IOL calculation formulas (BU Ⅱ, EVO 2.0, Kane, LSF, and RBF 3.0) in phacovitrectomy. Design Prospective non-randomized controlled study. Parcitipants 52 patients (control group) who underwent cataract extraction combined with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation due to simple cataracts, as well as 52 patients (52 eyes) who underwent phacovitrectomy due to cataracts combined with full-thickness macular holes or epiretinal membrane (study group) were inclueded between September 2021 and November 2022. Methods The BU II formula was used to calculate the IOL power for all the patients. We checked and recorded the best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of all patients before and 1 month after surgery, and calculated the refractive error (PE), standard deviation, mean absolute error, median absolute error, and percentage of eyes with PE within the range of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D for the five IOL calculation formulas. And compareed the performance of the formulas’ prediction performance. Main Outcome Measures PE value using five IOL calculation formulas. Results In the control group, the PE values of the Kane and EVO formulas were (0.20±0.39) D and (0.19±0.40) D, respectively, presenting hyperopia system errors (t=3.41, P=0.001; t=3.60, P=0.001, respectively). The BU Ⅱ, LSF, and RBF 3.0 formulas had no system errors. In the study group, there was no significant difference of PE compared to 0 in the five formulas. The standard deviation, mean absolute error, median absolute error, and percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D of all formulas in the study group were inferior to those in the control group. After comparing the predictive performance of formulas, the Kane formula and LSF formula ranked the highest in the control group, while the BU II formula ranked the best in the study group. Conclusion At one month after surgery, the application of Barrett UII, LSF, Kane, EVO 2.0, and RBF 3.0 formulas in the study group did not show hyperopic or myopic drift, but their accuracy was lower than that of the control group, manifested as larger standard deviation, mean absolute error, and median absolute error, as well as a lower proportion of PE in all given ranges compared to the control group. However the Barrett UII formula performed the best predicting accuracy in the study group. (Ophthalmol CHN, 2024, 33: 295-300)

Key words: phacovitrectomy, intraocular lens formulas