J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021 May 18. doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000702. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3 formula, with and without direct measurements of total corneal power, using a heteroscedastic statistical method for analysis.
SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, consecutive case series.
METHODS: Records of consecutive patients who underwent routine cataract surgery between February 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula was compared to the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 (EVO), Haigis, HILL-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T formulas, based on biometry measurements by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) with standard keratometry )K(, SS-OCT with total keratometry (TK), and an optical low-coherence reflectometer (OLCR). Statistical analysis was applied according to a heteroscedastic statistical method with a standard deviation (SD) of prediction errors as the main parameter for formula performance.
RESULTS: The study included 153 eyes of 153 patients. The SD values that were obtained by HILL-RBF 3.0 (0.266-0.285D) were significantly lower compared to Hill-RBF 2.0 (0.290-0.309D), Hoffer Q (0.387-0.407D), Holladay 1 (0.367-0.385D), Holladay 2 (0.386-0.401D), and SRK/T (0.377-0.399D) formulas, P < .036. The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was similar across the SS-OCT (K), SS-OCT (TK), and OLCR methods of measurement (P > .51).
CONCLUSIONS: HILL-RBF 3.0 was more accurate than Hill-RBF 2.0 and older generation formulas and had similar prediction accuracy compared to new generation formulas. The use of total keratometry did not provide significant improvement to its prediction accuracy.
PMID:34016821 | DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000702
