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.