首页> 外文期刊>Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology: Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Opthalmologie >Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery
【24h】

Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery

机译:白内障手术中常规角膜测量术中屈光结果的比较或对白内障手术中IOL功率计算的折射计

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose To compare the refractive outcomes following cataract surgery using conventional keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in the SRK/T, HofferQ, Haigis, and Holladay 1 and 2, as well as Barrett and Barrett TK Universal II formulas. Methods Sixty eyes of 60 patients from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were prospectively enrolled in this comparative study. Eyes were assessed using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Posterior keratometry, K, TK, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, axial length, and white-to-white corneal diameter were recorded. Emmetropic IOL power was calculated using K and TK in all formulas. Selected IOL power and predicted refractive outcomes were recorded. Postoperative manifest refraction was measured 3 months postoperatively. Mean absolute errors (MAEs), median absolute errors (MedAEs), and percentage of eyes within +/- 0.25, +/- 0.50, and +/- 1.00 D of predicted refraction were calculated for all formulas in both groups. Results Mean difference between K and TK was 0.03 D (44.56 +/- 1.18 vs. 44.59 +/- 1.22 D), showing excellent agreement (ICC = 0.99, all p < 0.001). Emmetropic IOL powers in all formulas for both groups were very similar, with a trend toward lower MAEs and MedAEs for TK when compared with K. The Barrett TK Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs. Proportion of eyes within +/- 0.25, +/- 0.50, and +/- 1.00 D of predicted refraction were slightly higher in the TK group. Conclusions Conventional K and TK for IOL calculation showed strong agreement with a trend toward better refractive outcomes using TK. The same IOL constant can be used for both K and TK.
机译:目的,用于使用常规角膜术(K)和SRK / T,Hofferq,Haigis和Holladay 1和2中的人工晶状体(IOL)计算中对白内障手术(k)和总时腔(TK)进行比较屈光结果。以及Barrett和Barrett TK Universal II公式。方法泰国锡拉拉医院60名患者的60名眼睛六十只注册了六十岁患者。使用扫描源光学生物学计(IOLMASTER 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec,Jena,Germany)评估眼睛。记录后腔后腔,K,TK,中央角膜厚度,前房深度,透镜厚度,轴向长度和白色的角膜直径。在所有公式中使用K和TK计算EmmetropicIC IOL电源。记录了选择的IOL电源和预测屈光结果。术后表现折射术后3个月。对于两个组中的所有公式计算所有公式的+/- 0.25,+/- 0.50,+/- 0.25,+/- 0.50和+/- 1.00d中的眼睛中位绝对误差(maes),中位绝对误差(Maes),和眼中的百分比。结果K和TK之间的平均差异为0.03d(44.56 +/- 1.18与44.59 +/- 1.22d),显示出优秀的一致性(ICC = 0.99,所有P <0.001)。两组的所有公式中的Emmetropic IOL Powers非常相似,与K的较低的MAE和MEDAES趋势趋势与K.Barrett TK Universal II公式相比,展示了最低的MAE。 TK组+/- 0.25,+/- 0.50和+/- 1.00d预测折射的比例略高。结论IOL计算的常规K和TK表现出强烈的一致性与使用传统知识的更好屈光结果的趋势。相同的IOL常数可用于K和TK。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号