Publication
VRF-G, a New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula: A 13-Formulas Comparison Study
dc.contributor.author | Hipólito-Fernandes, D | |
dc.contributor.author | Luís, ME | |
dc.contributor.author | Gil, P | |
dc.contributor.author | Maduro, V | |
dc.contributor.author | Feijão, J | |
dc.contributor.author | Yeo, T | |
dc.contributor.author | Voytsekhivskyy, O | |
dc.contributor.author | Alves, N | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-08-09T14:22:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-08-09T14:22:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: To compare the accuracy of a newly developed intraocular lens (IOL) power formula (VRF-G) with twelve existing formulas (Barret Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, Næeser 2, PEARL-DGS, SRK/T, T2 and VRF). Methods: Retrospective case series including 828 patients having uncomplicated cataract surgery with the implantation of a single IOL model (SN60WF). Using optimised constants, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the axial length (short ≤22.0mm; medium >22.0mm to <26.0mm; long ≥26.0mm). Main outcomes included mean prediction error (ME) mean (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE), in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D. Results: Formulas absolute errors were statistically different among them (p<0.001), with Kane having the lowest MAE of all formulas, followed by EVO 2.0 and VRF-G, which had the lowest MedAE. The Kane formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.25D (47.0%) and ±1.00D (97.7%) and the VRF-G formula had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (79.5%). For all AL subgroups, Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas had the most accurate performances (lowest MAE). Conclusion: New generation formulas may help us in achieving better refractive results, lowering the variance in accuracy in extreme eyes - Kane, EVO 2.0 and VRF-G formulas are promising candidates to fulfil that goal. | pt_PT |
dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | pt_PT |
dc.identifier.citation | Clin Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec 16;14:4395-4402. | pt_PT |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2147/OPTH.S290125. | pt_PT |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.17/3803 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | pt_PT |
dc.peerreviewed | yes | pt_PT |
dc.publisher | Dove Press | pt_PT |
dc.subject | CHLC OFT | pt_PT |
dc.subject | Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas | pt_PT |
dc.subject | Biometry | pt_PT |
dc.subject | Cataract | pt_PT |
dc.subject | Phacoemulsification | pt_PT |
dc.subject | Formulas Accuracy | pt_PT |
dc.title | VRF-G, a New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula: A 13-Formulas Comparison Study | pt_PT |
dc.type | journal article | |
dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
oaire.citation.endPage | 4402 | pt_PT |
oaire.citation.startPage | 4395 | pt_PT |
oaire.citation.title | Clinical Ophthalmology | pt_PT |
oaire.citation.volume | 14 | pt_PT |
rcaap.rights | openAccess | pt_PT |
rcaap.type | article | pt_PT |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1