目的：探究囊袋张力环(CTR)植入对五种新一代人工晶状体(IOL)计算公式[Barrett Universal Ⅱ (BUⅡ), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Kane, Pearl-DGS和Hill-RBF 2.0]在高度近视患者中预测准确性的影响。方法：前瞻性病例对照研究。观察2020年12月—2021年9月于陕西省眼科医院就诊的眼轴长度(axial length,AL)≥ 27.00 mm行白内障联合IOL(AR40E, 美国强生)植入术的患者。术眼随机分为植入CTR组(A组)和未植入CTR组(B组)。术前根据IOLMaster700测量眼部参数，使用BU Ⅱ公式计算所需IOL度数。记录术后1周、1个月及3个月实际等效球镜度(spherical equivalent,SE)，计算并比较五种公式预测误差(prediction error,PE)和绝对屈光预测误差(absolute Error,AE)。将A组和B组分别分为A1组(27.00 mm ≤ AL ≤ 30.00 mm)和A2组(AL>30.00 mm)；B1组(27.00 mm ≤ AL ≤ 30.00 mm)和B2组(AL >30.00 mm)，分析不同AL范围内CTR植入对公式预测准确性的影响。结果：共纳入患者63例(89眼)，年龄(55.93±10.17)岁，术前AL为(30.30±2.18)mm。A组、A1组及A2组术后不同时间SE值比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)，B组、B1组及B2组术后1周与1个月，术后1周与3月SE值分别比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，术后1个月与3个月比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A组、B组、A1组、A2组、B1组和B2组各组中五种公式的AE值比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。植入CTR后五种公式的预测误差变化比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论：对于AL ≥27.00 mm的白内障患者，植入CTR组术后1周屈光度趋于稳定，未植入组术后1个月屈光度趋于稳定。CTR植入对五种公式预测准确性和选择无影响，五种计算公式均可正常选择。

Objective: To investigate the predictive accuracy and effect of capsular tension ring (CTR) implantation with five new generation intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas [Barrett Universal Ⅱ (BU Ⅱ), Emmetropia Verifying Optical(EVO), Kane, Pearl-DGS and Hill-RBF 2.0] in high myopia patients. Methods: This is a prospective case-control study. The patients were enrolled with an axial length (AL)≥27.00 mm, and underwent cataract surgery with AR40E IOL implantation at the Shaanxi Eye Hospital from December 2020 to September 2021. The patients were randomly assigned to the CTR implantation group (group A) and the non-CTR implantation group (group B). With the ocular parameters measured by the IOLMaster700, the IOL power was calculated with the BUⅡformula before surgery. The postoperative actual equivalent spherical diopter (SE) were recorded,and the predicted error (PE) and absolute error (AE) using the five formulas were recorded and compared at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months, repsectively. Group A was divided to A1 (27.00 mm ≤ AL ≤ 30.00 mm) and A2 (AL>30.00 mm), and group B was divided to B1 (27.00 mm ≤ AL ≤ 30.00 mm) and B2 (AL>30.00 mm). The effects of CTR implantation and the accuracy of the formulas were analyzed with different AL ranges. Results: A total of 63 patients (89 eyes) were included, aged (55.93±10.17) years old, with preoperative AL (30.30± 2.18)mm. There was no statistically significant difference in SE between groups A, A1, and A2 (P>0.05) at different postoperative times. While there was a statistically significant difference in SE between groups B, B1, and B2 (P < 0.05) at 1 week and 1 month after surgery, and between 1 week and 3 months after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference between 1 month and 3 months after suergery (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the AE using the five formulas among groups A, B, A1, A2, B1, and B2 (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in prediction error changes among the five formulas after CTR implantation (P>0.05). Conclusion: For cataract patients with AL ≥ 27.00 mm, the refractionvalue in the CTR implantation group tended to stabilizeafter one week of surgery. While in the non-CTR implantation group, the refractionvalue tended to stabilize after one month. CTR implantation had no effect on the accuracy and selection of the five formula, and the five IOL calculation formulas can be normally selected.

目的：比较六种新一代人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)屈光力计算公式[Barrett Universal Ⅱ(BUⅡ)、Emmetropia Verifying Optical(EVO)、Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBF)、Kane、Ladas Super Formula(LSF)、T2]和传统公式(Haigis、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、SRK/T)的准确性。方法：纳入2022年1—6月于温州医科大学附属眼视光医院接受白内障手术患者。收集患者的年龄、性别、眼轴(axial length,AL)、平均角膜曲率(mean keratometry,Kmean)、前房深度、IOL常数和屈光力，术后医学验光结果。对上述10种公式进行准确性分析，包括平均预测误差(mean prediction error,ME)及其标准差、平均绝对预测误差(mean absolute prediction error,MAE)、绝对预测误差中位数(median absolute prediction error,MedAE)、绝对预测误差最大值(maximum absolute prediction error,MaxAE)、预测误差落在±0.25、±0.5、±0.75、±1.00 D范围内的百分比(%±0.25 D、%±0.50 D、%±0.75 D、%±1.00 D)。结果：共纳入506例(506眼)。Kane的MAE最低(0.411)。Hill-RBF的%±0.25 D最高(40.91%)，EVO的%±0.50 D或%±0.75 D最高(分别为69.37%、86.17%)，BUⅡ和Hill-RBF的%±1.00 D最高(均为94.07%)。总体上各种公式间，MAE、%±0.50 D、%±0.75 D、%±1.00 D比较差异存在统计学意义(P<0.05)，但两两比较仅发现%±0.75 D中，EVO(86.17%)、Hill-RBF(85.97%)、Kane(85.57%)与HofferQ(81.42%)比较差异存在统计学意义(均P<0.05)。AL亚组中，长AL组的EVO(0.390)、Hill-RBF(0.388)、T2(0.423)、Kane(0.393)四种公式的MAE与Hoffer Q(0.681)、Holladay 1(0.654)比较差异存在统计学意义(均P<0.05)，EVO(74.47%)的%±0.50 D与Hoffer Q(46.81%)比较差异存在统计学意义(P=0.017)。结论：新一代IOL屈光力计算公式在IOL屈光力计算上均具有较好的准确性，但对于不同的眼轴长度与角膜曲率值的眼球，需要选择适合的计算公式，以进一步提高预测准确性。

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of six new generation intraocular lenses (IOL) refractive power calculation formulas (Barrett Universal Ⅱ [BU Ⅱ ], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO], Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF], Kane, Ladas Super Formula [LSF], T2) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/ T). Methods: The patients who received cataract surgery in the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from January 2022 to June 2022 were included in this study. Age, gender, axial length (AL), mean keratometry, anterior chamber depth, IOL constant and power, and postoperative refraction results were collected. The prediction accuracy of these ten IOL power calculation formulas was analyzed, including mean prediction error (ME) and its standard deviation, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), maximum absolute prediction error (MaxAE), the percentage of eyes of PE within the range of ±0.25 D, ±0.5 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.0 D (%±0.25 D,%±0.50 D, %±0.75 D, %±1.00 D). Results: 506 eyes of 506 patients were included. Kane has the lowest MAE (0.411).%±0.25 D of Hill-RBF was the highest (40.91%), %±0.50 D or %±0.75 D of EVO was the highest (69.37%, 86.17%), and %±1.00 D of BU Ⅱ and Hill-RBF was the highest (94.07%). There are significant differences in MAE, %±0.50 D, %±0.75 D, and %±1.00 D among all formulas (P<0.05). Still, pairwise comparison only found differences between EVO (86.17%), Hill-RBF (85.97%), Kane (85.57%), and Hoffer Q (81.42%) in %±0.75 D (all P<0.05). In AL subgroup, the MAE of EVO (0.390), Hill-RBF (0.388), T2 (0.423) and Kane (0.393) in long AL group was different from that of Hoffer Q (0.681) and Holladay 1 (0.654) (all P<0.05), the difference of %±0.50D of EVO (74.47%) compared with Hoffer Q (46.81%) (P=0.017). Conclusion: The new generation of IOL power calculation formulas have good accuracy in IOL power prediction, but for eyes with different axial lengths and keratometry, it is necessary to optimize the selection of formulas to improve the prediction accuracy further.

目的：探讨运用Barrett Universal Ⅱ公式(BUⅡ公式)计算人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)屈光力时，可选参数角膜横径，又称白到白(white-to-white,W T W)与晶状体厚度(lens thickness,LT)的实际应用价值。方法：采用单中心、前瞻性临床研究，连续纳入同一术者顺利进行白内障超声乳化吸除术联合MX60(IOL植入术患眼279眼，术前使用OA-2000非接触式光学生物测量仪测量眼部数据并计算IOL植入度数，代入B UⅡ公式保留或去掉可选参数WTW、LT计算预测结果，进一步根据患者眼轴长度(axial length,AL)分亚组分析。主要结局指标：随访患者至术后1个月以上，比较使用和未使用WTW和LT两个参数、BUⅡ公式预测误差(prediction error,PE)、绝对预测误差(absolute error,AE)、AE小于0.5 D所占比例。结果：总体1上，忽略W T W + LT，PE为-0.05 D(-0.26, 0.18)(P=0.011)，其他参数组合的PE与0比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。各参数组合的AE比较差异无统计学意义(0.22~0.23 D，P= 0.404)。同时忽略WTW + LT时AE出现最大值(+1.5 D)。应用WTW + LT、忽略WTW + LT、忽略WTW和忽略LT时纳入患者AE ≤ 0.50 D的比例分别为80.65%、79.57%、80.65%和81.36%。在各眼轴亚组中，忽略LT时，AE ≤ 0.50 D的百分比在短眼轴亚组(80.00% vs.66.67%~73.33%)与长眼轴亚组(77.78% vs. 73.33%~75.56%)中较高。在中等眼轴亚组中，AE ≤ 0.50 D百分比代入全部参数时略高(83.11% vs. 80.82%~82.19%)，忽略WTW + LT计算时稍低(80.82%)。结论：使用BU Ⅱ计算IOL屈光力时，可选参数WTW和LT无论是否代入公式中，皆可得到相近的平均预测水平；但是，同时忽略WTW和LT可能出现较大预测误差。对于22 mm ≤ AL<26 mm眼，推荐代入全部参数计算；当AL≤ 22 mm或AL ≥ 26 mm，仅输入WTW的计算方法累积精确度更高，可优先采用。

Objective: To investigate the practical application value of the optional parameters of corneal horizontal diameter or white to white (WTW) and lens thickness (LT) a using Barrett Universal II formula. Methods: Single-center, prospective clinical study. Eligible 279 eyes who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification and enVista MX60 implantation by the same surgeon were consecutively enrolled. OA-2000 (Tomey, Japan) non-contact optical biometry was used to measure the ocular data and calculate the IOL implantation power preoperatively. The BU II network formula was used to retain or remove optional parameters WTW and LT, and the predicted results were calculated. Further subgroup analysis was conducted based on the patient's axial length. Main outcome measures: Follow up patients for more than 1 month after surgery, compare the proportion of using and not using WTW and LT parameters, BU II formula prediction error (PE), absolute prediction error (AE), and AE less than 0.5 D. Results: Overall, ignoring WTW + LT, the median PE was -0.05 D (-0.26, 0.18) (P = 0.011) , and there is no statistically significant difference in PE compared 0 for the other parameter combinations (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the median AE of each parameter combination (0.22~0.23 D, P = 0.404). While ignoring both WTW and LT, the maximum AE value (+1.5 D) was found. The proportion of patients with AE ≤ 0.50 D included in the application of WTW+LT, neglect of WTW+LT, neglect of WTW, and neglect of LT were 80.65%, 79.57%, 80.65%, and 81.36%, respectively in each axial subgroup, when LT was ignored, the percentage of AE ≤ 0.50 D was higher in the short axial subgroup (80% vs. 66.67%~73.33%) and the long axial subgroup (77.78% vs. 73.33%~75.56%). In the subgroup of moderate eye axis, the percentage of AE ≤ 0.50 D was slightly higher when all parameters were substituted (83.11% vs. 80.82%~82.19%), and slightly lower when WTW+LT calculation was ignored (80.82%). Conclusions: When applying Barrett Universal II to calculate the refractive power of artificial lenses, the optional parameters WTW and LT can obtain similar average prediction levels regardless of whether they are substituted into the formula; However, ignoring both WTW and LT may result in significant prediction errors. For eyes with a diameter of 22 mm ≤ AL<26 mm, it is recommended to use all parameters for calculation; When AL ≤ 22 mm or AL ≥ 26 mm, the calculation method that only inputs WTW has higher cumulative accuracy, and it is suggested to be prioritized.

目的：在硅油取出联合白内障手术患者中，使用扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪OA-2000进行生物测量，比较10种人工晶状体(IOL)屈光力计算公式的准确性。方法：回顾性分析2021年3月—7月于中山大学中山眼科中心接受硅油取出联合白内障手术的患者共62例(62眼)，所有患者均使用扫频源光学相干断层扫描生物测量仪OA-2000进行生物学参数测量。计算并比较新公式[Barrett Universal II (BUII)、Emmetropia Verifying Optical(EVO) 2.0、Hill-Radial Basis Function (Hill-RBF) 3.0、Hoffer QST、Kane、Pearl-DGS]及传统公式(Haigis、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、SRK/T)的预测准确性，主要评价指标为绝对预测误差中位数(MedAE)及平均绝对预测误差(MAE)。按眼轴长度≤23 mm(组1)，>23 mm且≤26 mm(组2)与>26 mm(组3)进行亚组分析。结果：6个新公式、Haigis、SRK/T公式均出现近视漂移(-0.47 ~-0.27 D，P<0.05)，而HofferQ及Holladay 1公式无系统误差(P>0.05)。Kane公式的MedAE(0.55 D)及MAE(0.81 D)最小，但公式间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。组1中所有公式均出现近视漂移(-1.46~ -1.25 D，P<0.05)，而其他亚组比较差异无统计学意义(-0.32 ~ 0.41 D，P>0.05)。在组1中，Pearl-DGS公式的MedAE(0.97 D)及MAE(1.26 D)最小，且优于Hill-RBF 3.0(P=0.01)及SRK/T公式(P=0.02)；组2中，Kane公式具有最小的MedAE(0.44 D)及MAE(0.66 D)；组3各个公式屈光预测准确性比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论：在使用OA-2000进行术前生物测量时，Kane公式在接受硅油取出联合白内障手术患者中的预测准确性较高；而眼轴长度≤23 mm时，Pearl-DGS公式可能更为准确。

Objective: To compare the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in patients undergoing combined silicone oil removal and cataract surgery, biometry is performed using the swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer OA-2000. Methods: A retrospective analysis. A total of 62 patients (62 eyes) who underwent combined silicone oil removal and cataract surgery in Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University from March to July in 2021 were enrolled. Preoperative biometry was performed by OA-2000 in all patients. New-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] 2.0, Hill-Radial Basis Function [Hill-RBF] 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane and Pearl-DGS) and traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and SRK/T) were evaluated. The median absolute prediction error (MedAE) and mean absolute prediction error (MAE) were the main parameters used to assess accuracy. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the axial length of 23 mm and 26 mm. Results: Six new-generation formulas, Haigis, and SRK/T showed myopic shift (-0.47 ~ -0.27 D, P<0.05), while no systematic bias was found in Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 displayed (P>0.05). The smallest MedAE (0.55 D) and MAE (0.81 D) were found in Kane formula, but there was no statistically significant difference compared with other formulas (P>0.05). The myopic shift (-1.46 ~ -1.25 D, P<0.05) in eyes shorter than 23 mm were found in all formulas, while there was no significant systematic bias (-0.32 ~ 0.41 D, P>0.05) in other subgroups. In axial length shorter than 23 mm, the Pearl-DGS formula stated the smallest MedAE (0.97 D) and MAE (1.26 D), and was significantly more accurate than Hill-RBF 3.0 (P=0.01) and SRK/T (P=0.02). In eyes with an axial length between 23 mm and 26 mm, the Kane formula had the lowest MedAE (0.44 D) and MAE (0.66 D). No significant difference was found in eyes longer than 26 mm. Conclusion: The Kane formula showed the highest accuracy in patients undergoing combined silicone oil removal and cataract surgery measured by OA-2000, whereas the Pearl-DGS formula could be more accurate in eyes with an axial length shorter than 23 mm.

Ⅱ期人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)植入常用于矫正先天性白内障摘除术后无晶状体眼状态。IOL屈光力计算是影响儿童Ⅱ期IOL植入术后视功能发育和改善的关键因素之一。现有IOL屈光力计算公式是基于成人有晶状体眼的数据研发，能准确预测成人眼IOL植入的屈光力，但是对儿童Ⅱ期IOL植入的屈光力预测准确性欠佳，主要原因包括：1)儿童II期植入术前为无晶状体眼，缺乏部分公式定义中的有晶状体眼的前房深度(是指从角膜前表面中央顶点到晶状体前表面的距离)和晶状体厚度。2)公式根据囊袋内植入IOL预测屈光力，但儿童Ⅱ期IOL睫状沟植入术在临床上应用更为广泛。当IOL植入睫状沟时有效晶状体位置发生前移，可能引起屈光预测误差。3)成人眼的发育已完成，目标屈光度多为正视或近视眼(-3.00 ~ +1.00 D)，但是儿童眼仍在发育，需针对其特性测算合适的远视目标屈光度(+0.50 ~ +12.00 D)以适应眼球发育引起的屈光变化。为使Ⅱ期IOL植入患儿达到术前预设的目标屈光度，对现有公式进行选择与优化至关重要。

Secondary intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is a common treatment for pediatric aphakia. The accurate prediction of IOL power calculation plays a pivotal role in the postoperative development and improvement of visual function for pediatric secondary IOL implantation. Current IOL power calculation formulas were developed based on data from adult phakic eyes and displayed good performance in adult population. However, the formulas showed poor performance in pediatric aphakic population due to the following reasons: 1) In these pediatric aphakic patients, the unavailability of phakic anterior chamber depth (the distance from corneal epithelium to the anterior surface of the lens) and lens thickness (LT) greatly limits the application of some IOL power calculation formulas. 2) IOL power calculation formulas predict the effective lens position on the basis of in-the-bag IOL implantation, whereas sulcus implantation is more widely used in pediatric secondary implantation. Effective lens position in capsular placement is more posterior to ciliary sulcus IOL placement. When applying the initial IOL power calculated for capsular implantation to sulcus implantation, it can lead to refractive errors. 3) Adult eyes have completed their development, with target refractions often being emmetropic or myopic (-3.00 ~ +1.00 D), while pediatric eyes are still developing, necessitating the calculation of an appropriate hyperopic (+0.50 ~ +12.00 D) target refraction to accommodate refractive changes due to ocular growth.To achieve the predetermined target refractive outcomes, the selection and optimization of IOL power calculation formulas is critically important for pediatric secondary IOL implantation.