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：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.