Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparing the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using artificial intelligence and traditional formulas in highly myopic patients: a meta-analysis.
Hao, Yuxu; Fu, Jin; Huang, Jin; Chen, Ding.
Afiliación
  • Hao Y; School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, No. 270, Xueyuan Road, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
  • Fu J; School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, No. 270, Xueyuan Road, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
  • Huang J; School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, No. 270, Xueyuan Road, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China.
  • Chen D; School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University, No. 270, Xueyuan Road, Wenzhou, 325000, Zhejiang, China. necoding@126.com.
Int Ophthalmol ; 44(1): 242, 2024 Jun 21.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38904666
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations is one of the key indicators for determining the success of cataract surgery. However, in highly myopic patients, the calculation errors are relatively larger than those in general patients. With the continuous development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, there has also been a constant emergence of AI-related calculation formulas. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of AI calculation formulas in calculating the power of IOL for highly myopic patients.

METHODS:

We searched the relevant literature through August 2023 using three databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Six IOL calculation formulas were compared Kane, Hill-RBF, EVO, Barrett II, Haigis, and SRK/T. The included metrics were the mean absolute error (MAE) and percentage of errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D.

RESULTS:

The results showed that the MAE of Kane was significantly lower than that of Barrett II (mean difference = - 0.03 D, P = 0.02), SRK/T (MD = - 0.08 D, P = 0.02), and Haigis (MD = - 0.12 D, P < 0.00001). The percentage refractive prediction errors for Kane at ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were significantly greater than those for SRK/T (P = 0.007, 0.003, and 0.01, respectively) and Haigis (P = 0.009, 0.0001, and 0.001, respectively). No statistically significant differences were noted between Hill-RBF and Barret, but Hill-RBF was significantly better than SRK/T and Haigis.

CONCLUSION:

The AI calculation formulas showed more accurate results compared with traditional formulas. Among them, Kane has the best performance in calculating IOL degrees for highly myopic patients.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Refracción Ocular / Inteligencia Artificial / Agudeza Visual / Lentes Intraoculares Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int Ophthalmol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Países Bajos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Refracción Ocular / Inteligencia Artificial / Agudeza Visual / Lentes Intraoculares Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Int Ophthalmol Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China Pais de publicación: Países Bajos