Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

17 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle.

ABSTRACT: Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is always a challenge in ophthalmology, and unoptimized process may lead to inaccurate refractive outcomes. Quality control circle (QCC) has shown its success in many fields as a process management tool. However, its efficacy in ophthalmology remains unclear. Here we utilized the QCC method to optimize the process and evaluate its efficacy in improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation. After the QCC application, the percentage of eyes with achieved refractive outcomes within 0.5 diopter significantly increased from 63.2% to 80.8% calculated by Haigis formula and 59.2% to 75.8% by SRK/T formula in patients with normal axial length (AL) (22 mm ≤ AL < 26 mm). Although there were no statistically significant differences in patients with long AL by the two formulas (p = 0.886 and 0.726), we achieved an accuracy of 75% with the application of the PhacoOptics software, which was significantly higher than that using the other two formulas (p < 0.001). Our findings indicated that QCC optimized and standardized the process of IOL power calculation, thus improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

SUBMITTER: Lin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5665969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.

Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS:The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS:There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.

| S-EPMC6959581 | biostudies-literature

Intraocular lens power calculation formulas accuracy in combined phacovitrectomy: an 8-formulas comparison study.

Project description:BackgroundOur study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane and PEARL-DGS) in patients submitted to combined phacovitrectomy for vitreomacular (VM) interface disorders.MethodsRetrospective chart review study including axial-length matched patients submitted to phacoemulsification alone (Group 1) and combined phacovitrectomy (Group 2). Using optimized constants in both groups, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. The optimised constants from Group 1 were also applied to patients of Group 2 - Group 3. Outcome measures included the mean prediction error (ME) and its standard deviation (SD), mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors, in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D.ResultsA total of 220 eyes were included (Group 1: 100; Group 2: 120). In Group 1, the difference in formulas absolute error was significative (p = 0.005). The Kane Formula had the lowest MAE (0.306) and MedAE (0.264). In Group 2, Kane had the overall best performance, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0 and Barrett Universal II. The ME of all formulas in both Groups 1 and 2 were 0.000 (p = 0.934; p = 0.971, respectively). In Group 3, a statistically significant myopic shift was observed for each formula (p < 0.001).ConclusionSurgeons must be careful regarding IOL power selection in phacovitrectomy considering the systematic myopic shift evidenced-constant optimization may help eliminating such error. Moreover, newly introduced formulas and calculation methods may help us achieving increasingly better refractive outcomes both in cataract surgery alone and phacovitrectomy.

| S-EPMC8371894 | biostudies-literature

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction.

Project description:With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference - a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [-0.36 ± 0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.

| S-EPMC7136233 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:This review article attempts to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes. A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for articles published over the past 21 years, up to July 2021. The mean absolute error was compared by using weighted mean difference, whereas odds ratio was used for comparing the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.0 D of target refraction. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was analyzed by using Chi-square test and I2 test. Fifteen studies including 2,395 eyes and 11 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Full Monte method, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Super formula, SRK/T, and T2) were included. Although the mean absolute error (MAE) of Barrett Universal II was found to be the lowest, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the comparisons. The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett Universal II was the lowest (0.260). Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction, respectively. Yet their comparison with the rest of the formulae did not yield statistically significant results. Thus, to conclude, in the present meta-analysis, although lowest MAE and MedAE were found for Barrett Universal II and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction was found for Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF, respectively, none of the formulae was found to be statistically superior over the other in eyes with short axial length.

| S-EPMC9114558 | biostudies-literature

Application of total keratometry in ten intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes.

Project description:BackgroundThe accuracy of using total keratometry (TK) value in recent IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes remained unknown.MethodsHighly myopic patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were prospectively enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At one month postoperatively, standard deviation (SD) of the prediction errors (PEs), mean and median absolute error (MedAE) of 103 highly myopic eyes were back-calculated and compared among ten formulas, including XGboost, RBF 3.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Cooke K6, Haigis, SRK/T, and Wang-Koch modifications of Haigis and SRK/T formulas, using either TK or standard keratometry (K) value.ResultsIn highly myopic eyes, despite good agreement between TK and K (P > 0.05), larger differences between the two were associated with smaller central corneal thickness (P < 0.05). As to the refractive errors, TK method showed no differences compared to K method. The XGBoost, RBF 3.0 and Kane ranked top three when considering SDs of PEs. Using TK value, the XGboost calculator was comparable with the RBF 3.0 formula (P > 0.05), which both presented smaller MedAEs than others (all P < 0.05). As for the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 0.75 D of PE, the XGBoost TK showed comparable percentages with the RBF 3.0 TK formula (74.76% vs. 66.99%, or 90.29% vs. 87.38%, P > 0.05), and statistically larger percentages than the other eight formulas (P < 0.05).ConclusionsHighly myopic eyes with thinner corneas tend to have larger differences between TK and K. The XGboost enhancement calculator and RBF 3.0 formula using TK showed the most promising outcomes in highly myopic eyes.

| S-EPMC9178866 | biostudies-literature

Predictive accuracy of partial coherence interferometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography for intraocular lens power calculation.

Project description:The purpose of this study is to compare the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations made with partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOLMaster, version 5) and swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT, Argos). Axial length (AL), mean keratometry value (K), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were obtained using PCI and SS-OCT optical biometers. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were made using the Barret-Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and T2 formulas and compared the predictive accuracy between biometers. In 153 eyes (153 patients), axial length measurements made with PCI (24.65?±?2.35?mm) and SS-OCT (24.62?±?2.29?mm) were significantly different (P?<?0.001). Corneal power (P?=?0.97) and anterior chamber depth (P?=?0.51) were not significantly different between biometer. The mean absolute error was not significantly different between the five IOL power calculation formulas for either PCI or SS-OCT measurements. When AL was 24.5-26.0?mm, mean absolute error derived from SS-OCT was smaller than mean absolute error derived from PCI for all five IOL power calculation formulas (all P?<?0.05). In conclusion, predictive accuracy of PCI and SS-OCT were nearly the same. However, in medium-long eyes, the predictive accuracy of SS-OCT for IOL calculations was higher.

| S-EPMC6137182 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Cataract Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Background: Among the various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas available in clinical settings, which one can yield more accurate results is still inconclusive. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the IOL power calculation formulas used for pediatric cataract patients. Methods: Observational cohort studies published through April 2021 were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. For each included study, the mean differences of the mean prediction error and mean absolute prediction error (APE) were analyzed and compared using the random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies involving 1,647 eyes were enrolled in the meta-analysis, and five formulas were compared: Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and SRK II. Holladay 1 exhibited the smallest APE (0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.03). For the patients with an axial length (AL) less than 22 mm, SRK/T showed a significantly smaller APE than SRK II (mean difference [MD]: -0.37; 95% CI: -0.63 to -0.12). For the patients younger than 24 months, SRK/T had a significantly smaller APE than Hoffer Q (MD: -0.28; 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.06). For the patients aged 24-60 months, SRK/T presented a significantly smaller APE than Holladay 2 (MD: -0.60; 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.26). Conclusion: Due to the rapid growth and high variability of pediatric eyes, the formulas for IOL calculation should be considered according to clinical parameters such as age and AL. The evidence obtained supported the accuracy and reliability of SRK/T under certain conditions. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier: INPLASY202190077.

| S-EPMC8661900 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes: a meta-analysis.

Project description:BackgroundTo compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes.MethodsWe searched the databases on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies published between Jan 1st, 2009 and Aug 11th, 2019. Primary outcomes were the percentages of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D.ResultsThe final meta-analysis included 16 studies using seven common methods (ASCRS average, Barrett True-K no history, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis-L, OCT formula, Shammas-PL, and Wang-Koch-Maloney). ASCRS average yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.009, 0.01, 0.008, respectively). Barrett True-K no history also yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.01, P < 0.0001, respectively), and a similar result was found when comparing OCT formula with Haigis-L and Shammas-PL (P = 0.03, P = 0.01, respectively).ConclusionThe ASCRS average or Barrett True-K no history should be used to calculate the intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery. The OCT formula if available, can also be a good alternative choice.

| S-EPMC7339492 | biostudies-literature

Estimation of intraocular lens position from full crystalline lens geometry: towards a new generation of intraocular lens power calculation formulas.

Project description:In a cataract surgery, the opacified crystalline lens is replaced by an artificial intraocular lens (IOL). To optimize the visual quality after surgery, the intraocular lens to be implanted must be selected preoperatively for every individual patient. Different generations of formulas have been proposed for selecting the intraocular lens dioptric power as a function of its estimated postoperative position. However, very few formulas include crystalline lens information, in most cases only one-dimensional. The present study proposes a new formula to preoperatively estimate the postoperative IOL position (ELP) based on information of the 3-dimensional full shape of the crystalline lens, obtained from quantitative eye anterior segment optical coherence tomography imaging. Real patients were measured before and after cataract surgery (IOL implantation). The IOL position and the postoperative refraction estimation errors were calculated by subtracting the preoperative estimations from the actual values measured after surgery. The proposed ELP formula produced lower estimation errors for both parameters -ELP and refraction- than the predictions obtained with standard state-of-the-art methods, and opens new avenues to the development of new generation IOL power calculation formulas that improve refractive and visual outcomes.

| S-EPMC6026180 | biostudies-literature

Intraocular Lens power calculation after laser refractive surgery: A Meta-Analysis.

Project description:There are an increasing number of people who have had refractive surgery now developing cataract. To compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after laser refractive surgery (photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis), a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted to identify comparative cohort studies and case series comparing different formulas: Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. Seven cohort studies and three observational studies including 260 eyes were identified. There were significant differences when Hoffer Q formula compared with SRK/T, Holladay 1. Holladay 1 formula produced less prediction error than SRK/T formula in double-K method. Hoffer Q formula performed best among SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas in total and single-K method. In eyes with previous data, it is recommended to choose double-K formula except SRK/T formula. In eyes with no previous data, Haigis-L formula is recommended if available, if the fourth formula is unavailable, single-k Hoffer Q is a good choice.

| S-EPMC7021678 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data