Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes.

Liangpin Li, Liyun Yuan, Kun Yang, Yanan Wu, Simayilijiang Alafati, Xia Hua, Yan Wang, Xiaoyong Yuan
Author Information
  1. Liangpin Li: Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300020, China.
  2. Liyun Yuan: School of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.
  3. Kun Yang: Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Tianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300020, China.
  4. Yanan Wu: Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Tianjin Eye Institute, Tianjin Eye Hospital, Tianjin, 300020, China.
  5. Simayilijiang Alafati: Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300020, China.
  6. Xia Hua: Tianjin Aier Eye Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300190, China.
  7. Yan Wang: Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300020, China. wangyan7143@vip.sina.com.
  8. Xiaoyong Yuan: Clinical College of Ophthalmology, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, 300020, China. yuanxy_cn@hotmail.com.

Abstract

As of 2021, over 2.8 million small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedures have been performed in China. However, knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula for post-SMILE cataract patients remains limited. This study included 52 eyes of 26 myopic patients from northern China who underwent SMILE at Tianjin Eye Hospital from September 2022 to February 2023 to investigate the suitability of multiple IOL calculation formulas in post-SMILE patients using a theoretical surgical model. We compared the postoperative results obtained from three artificial intelligence (AI)-based formulas and six conventional formulas provided by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS). These formulas were applied to calculate IOL power using both total keratometry (TK) and keratometry (K) values, and the results were compared to the preoperative results obtained from the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula for the SMILE patients. Among the evaluated formulas, the results obtained from the Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 Formula with TK (EVO-TK) (0.40 ± 0.29 D, range 0-1.23 D), Barrett True K with K formula (BTK-K, 0.41 ± 0.26 D, range 0.01-1.19 D), and Masket with K formula (Masket-K, 0.44 ± 0.33 D, range 0.02-1.39 D) demonstrated the closest proximity to BUII. Notably, the highest proportion of prediction errors within 0.5 D was observed with the BTK-K (71.15%), EVO-TK (69.23%), and Masket-K (67.31%), with the BTK-K showing a significantly higher proportion than the Masket-K (p < 0.001). Our research indicates that in post-SMILE patients, the EVO-TK, BTK-K, and Masket-K may yield more accurate calculation results. At their current stage in development, AI-based formulas do not demonstrate significant advantages over conventional formulas. However, the application of historical data can enhance the performance of these formulas.

References

  1. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan;261(1):137-146 [PMID: 35881200]
  2. Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Apr;9(4):e489-e551 [PMID: 33607016]
  3. Am J Ophthalmol. 2023 Sep;253:206-214 [PMID: 37044197]
  4. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Sep;41(9):1880-8 [PMID: 26603397]
  5. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Mar;42(3):363-9 [PMID: 27006324]
  6. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019 May;45(5):582-586 [PMID: 30826241]
  7. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Mar;71(3):779-783 [PMID: 36872677]
  8. J Refract Surg. 2022 Jul;38(7):443-449 [PMID: 35858195]
  9. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 Jul;261(7):1913-1921 [PMID: 36763168]
  10. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Jul 1;48(7):784-789 [PMID: 35067661]
  11. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023 May 1;49(5):467-473 [PMID: 36700932]
  12. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023 Mar 1;49(3):239-245 [PMID: 36804866]
  13. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 Jan;261(1):77-84 [PMID: 35876885]
  14. J Clin Med. 2022 Dec 26;12(1): [PMID: 36614985]
  15. Sci Rep. 2022 May 5;12(1):7357 [PMID: 35513494]
  16. JMIR Med Inform. 2023 Apr 20;11:e44977 [PMID: 37079367]
  17. J Clin Med. 2022 Aug 18;11(16): [PMID: 36013086]
  18. Ophthalmology. 2011 May;118(5):940-4 [PMID: 21131054]
  19. Cornea. 2023 Apr 28;: [PMID: 37126644]
  20. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019 Aug 1;19(1):167 [PMID: 31370817]
  21. J Refract Surg. 2019 Jan 1;35(1):54-59 [PMID: 30633788]
  22. Sci Rep. 2021 Sep 28;11(1):19234 [PMID: 34584140]
  23. Ir J Med Sci. 2023 Jun;192(3):1525-1536 [PMID: 35976564]
  24. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr;261(4):1019-1027 [PMID: 36385570]
  25. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 Mar;32(3):430-4 [PMID: 16631051]
  26. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Nov;29(11):2063-8 [PMID: 14670413]
  27. Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 6;10(1):5982 [PMID: 32249851]
  28. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Nov 16;7:575779 [PMID: 33313044]
  29. Ophthalmology. 2021 Nov;128(11):e121-e131 [PMID: 32615201]
  30. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Jan;42(1):163-70 [PMID: 26948792]
  31. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 Nov 1;58(13):5703-5712 [PMID: 29101408]
  32. J Refract Surg. 2023 Apr;39(4):257-264 [PMID: 37040208]
  33. Ophthalmology. 2015 Nov;122(11):2169-78 [PMID: 26256834]
  34. Ophthalmol Ther. 2022 Oct;11(5):1869-1881 [PMID: 35917084]
  35. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020 Jul;46(7):1016-1019 [PMID: 32271267]
  36. Eye (Lond). 2021 Jun;35(6):1705-1711 [PMID: 32868880]
  37. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021 Mar 1;47(3):304-310 [PMID: 32932366]
  38. Lancet. 2023 Feb 4;401(10374):377-389 [PMID: 36565712]
  39. Clin Exp Optom. 2023 May 16;:1-6 [PMID: 37194118]

Grants

  1. 21JCZDJC01250/Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin City

MeSH Term

Humans
Artificial Intelligence
Biometry
Cataract
East Asian People
Lens Implantation, Intraocular
Lenses, Intraocular
Myopia
Optics and Photonics
Phacoemulsification
Refraction, Ocular
Retrospective Studies

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0formulas0DpatientsresultsSMILEcalculationformulaKBTK-KMasket-KIOLpowerpost-SMILEobtainedEVO-TKrange2ChinaHoweverintraocularlenseyes26myopicusingcomparedconventionalkeratometryTKBarrettBUIIproportion20218millionsmall-incisionlenticuleextractionproceduresperformedknowledgeregardingselectioncataractremainslimitedstudyincluded52northernunderwentTianjinEyeHospitalSeptember2022February2023investigatesuitabilitymultipletheoreticalsurgicalmodelpostoperativethreeartificialintelligenceAI-basedsixprovidedAmericanSocietyCataractRefractiveSurgeryASCRSappliedcalculatetotalvaluespreoperativeUniversalIIAmongevaluatedEmmetropiaVerifyingOpticalFormula40 ± 0290-123True41 ± 001-119Masket44 ± 03302-139demonstratedclosestproximityNotablyhighestpredictionerrorswithin5observed7115%6923%6731%showingsignificantlyhigherp < 0001researchindicatesmayyieldaccuratecurrentstagedevelopmentAI-baseddemonstratesignificantadvantagesapplicationhistoricaldatacanenhanceperformanceComparisonaccuracy9Chinese

Similar Articles

Cited By