Comparative Clinical Accuracy Analysis of the Newly Developed ZZ IOL and Four Existing IOL Formulas for Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

Zhang Jun,Shao Jie,Zheng Li,Shen Ye,Zhao Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01991-7

IF: 2.086

2021-01-01

BMC Ophthalmology

Abstract:Background Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. Study design Retrospective study. Methods Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. Results This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing ( P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL ( P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero ( P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.02), Barrett true K ( P = 0.03), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas ( P < 0.01), Haigis-L ( P = 0.03), Barrett True K ( P = 0.02), and ray tracing ( P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively ( P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). Conclusions The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.