山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报 ›› 2026, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (2): 74-79.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2024.597

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

急性闭角型青光眼超声乳化联合房角分离术后屈光预测准确性分析

王新萌1,姬俊雅2,于浩南3,付鸿臣1,王翔1,郑泽坤1,李艳1,钟莹莹1   

  1. 正大光明眼科集团)眼科, 山东 潍坊 261041
  • 发布日期:2026-03-26
  • 通讯作者: 李艳. E-mail:liyanmails@126.com;钟莹莹. E-mail:phoenixzhongyi@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    潍坊市青年医学人才托举工程资助

Analysis of refractive prediction accuracy after phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis in acute Angle closure glaucoma

WANG Xinmeng1, JI Junya2, YU Haonan3, FU Hongchen1, WANG Xiang1, ZHENG Zekun1, LI Yan1, ZHONG Yingying1   

  1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261041, Shandong, China 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Fuyang People's Hospital, Fuyang 236006, Anhui, China3. Department of Ophthalmology, Weifang Eye Hospital, Zhengda Guangming Eye Group, Weifang 261041, Shandong, China
  • Published:2026-03-26

PDF (PC)

3

摘要： 目的 本研究旨在探讨5种人工晶状体度数计算公式,即Haigis、Hoffer Q、Barrett Universal II、SRK/T和Kane在合并白内障的急性闭角型青光眼(acute angle closure glaucoma, AACG)中的准确性。 方法 本研究纳入56只AACG伴白内障眼,对其行超声乳化联合人工晶状体植入伴房角分离术。计算并比较术后3个月5种人工晶状体度数计算公式的屈光预测误差(prediction error, PE)、中位数绝对误差(median absolute error, MedARE)、平均绝对误差(mean absolute error, MAE)、近似误差均方根(root mean square error of approximation, RMSEA)以及PE在(±0.25)、(±0.50)、(±0.75)、(±1.00)D内的眼睛比例。分析影响AACG眼屈光预测误差的因素。 结果 各公式的MAE表现为Haigis(0.44 D)、 Barrett Universal II(0.55 D)、 Kane(0.60 D)、SRK/T(0.68 D)和Hoffer Q(0.69 D),5种公式预测误差在(±0.50)屈光度内的眼睛比例分别为71.43%(Haigis)、57.14%(Barrett Universal II)、55.36%(Kane)、44.64%(Hoffer Q)和42.56 %(SRK/T),各公式术后均出现近视漂移。 结论 5种人工晶体计算公式中Haigis表现最好,Barrett Universal II和Kane也取得了令人满意的效果,需注意AACG眼行白内障摘除联合晶状体植入伴房角分离术后可能引起的近视漂移。

关键词: 人工晶状体度数计算公式, 急性闭角型青光眼, 白内障, 超声乳化术, 房角分离术

Abstract: Objective This study aims to investigate the accuracy of five intraocular lens power calculation formulas, namely, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal II, SRK/T and Kane, in acute angle-closure glaucoma(AACG)combined with cataract. Methods This study included 56 eyes with AACG and cataracts, which underwent phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation and goniosynechialysis. The refractive prediction error(PE), median absolute error(MedARE), mean absolute error(MAE), root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA), and the proportion of eyes with refractive prediction error(PE)within the ranges of(±0.25),(±0.50),(±0.75),(±1.00)D.Factors influencing refractive prediction error in AACG eyes were analyzed. Results The MAE performance of each formula is as follows: Haigis(0.44 D), Barrett Universal ll(0.55D), Kane(0.60D), SRK/T(0.68D), and Hoffer Q(0.69D). The proportions of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 diopters for the five formulas were 71.43%(Haigis),57.14%(Barrett Universal II), 55.36%(Kane), 44.64%(Hoffer Q), and 42.56%(SRK/T). Myopic drift was observed postoperatively for all formulas. Conclusion Among the five artificial lens formulas,Haigis performed the best; Barrett Universal ll and Kane also achieved satisfactory results. lt should be noted that myopia drift may occur after AACG cataract extraction combined with lens implantation and goniosynechialysis.

Key words: IOL formula, Acute angle closure glaucoma, Cataract, Phacoemulsification, Goniosynechialysis

中图分类号: 

  • R775.9
[1] 王宁利, 王怀洲. 新型微创抗青光眼手术推广过程中应严格掌握适应证[J]. 中华眼科杂志, 2021, 57(9)641-643. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112142-20210719-00341 WANG Lixin, WANG Huaizhou. Strictly following the indications during the promotion of micro-invasive glaucoma surgeries[J]. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, 2021 57(9)641-643. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112142-20210719-00341
[2] Panse K, Le C, Hubbell M, et al. Surgical outcomes of phacoemulsification/goniosynechialysis with and without endocyclophotocoagulation in patients with chronic angle closure glaucoma[J]. Indian J Ophthalmol, 2019, 67(3): 366-370. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_895_18
[3] Razeghinejad MR, Myers JS. Contemporary approach to the diagnosis and management of primary angle-closure disease[J]. Surv Ophthalmol, 2018, 63(6): 754-768. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2018.05.001
[4] Kang SY, Hong SM, Won JB, et al. Inaccuracy of intraocular lens power prediction for cataract surgery in angle-closure glaucoma[J]. Yonsei Med J, 2009, 50(2): 206-210. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2009.50.2.206
[5] Khoramnia R, Auffarth G, Łabuz G, et al. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery[J]. Diagnostics(Basel), 2022, 12(2): 243. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12020243
[6] Hoffer KJ, Aramberri J, Haigis W, et al. Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2015, 160(3): 403-405.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2015.05.029
[7] Stopyra W, Voytsekhivskyy O, Grzybowski A. Accuracy of 20 intraocular lens power calculation formulas in medium-long eyes[J]. Ophthalmol Ther, 2024, 13(7): 1893-1907. doi: 10.1007/s40123-024-00954-7
[8] 高雪, 郝琳琳, 刘少华, 等. 两种人工晶体计算公式预测闭角型青光眼合并白内障患者超声乳化手术后屈光度准确性的比较[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2018, 32(1): 68-71. doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2017.512 GAO Xue, HAO Linlin, LIU Shaohua, et al. Comparison of two intraocular lens measurement formulas for prediction of postoperative refraction accuracy in patients with angle closure glaucoma and cataract[J]. Journal of Otolaryngology and Ophthalmology of Shandong University, 2018, 32(1): 68-71. doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1673-3770.0.2017.512
[9] Gökce SE, Zeiter JH, Weikert MP, et al. Intraocular lens power calculations in short eyes using 7 formulas[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(7): 892-897. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.07.004
[10] Pereira A, Popovic MM, Ahmed Y, et al. A comparative analysis of 12 intraocular lens power formulas[J]. Int Ophthalmol, 2021, 41(12): 4137-4150. doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01966-z
[11] Darcy K, Gunn D, Tavassoli S, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of new and updated intraocular lens power calculation formulas in 10 930 eyes from the UK National Health Service[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2020, 46(1): 2-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.08.014
[12] Connell BJ, Kane JX. Comparison of the Kane formula with existing formulas for intraocular lens power selection[J]. BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 2019, 4(1): e000251. doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000251
[13] Savini G, Di Maita M, Hoffer KJ, et al. Comparison of 13 formulas for IOL power calculation with measurements from partial coherence interferometry[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2021, 105(4): 484-489. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316193
[14] Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas[J]. Ophthalmology, 2018, 125(2): 169-178. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.08.027
[15] Eom Y, Kang SY, Song JS, et al. Comparison of Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae for intraocular lens power calculation according to the anterior chamber depth in short eyes[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2014, 157(4): 818-824.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.017
[16] Wang QW, Jiang W, Lin T, et al. Meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in short eyes[J]. Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2018, 46(4): 356-363. doi: 10.1111/ceo.13058
[17] Kim JW, Eom Y, Yoon EG, et al. Algorithmic intraocular lens power calculation formula selection by keratometry, anterior chamber depth and axial length[J]. Acta Ophthalmol, 2022, 100(3): e701-e709. doi: 10.1111/aos.14956
[18] Lu WH, Hou Y, Yang HF, et al. A systemic review and network meta-analysis of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle-closure conditions[J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(10): e0276286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276286
[19] Lin YD, Yin YL, Huang CK, et al. Accuracy of new intraocular lens calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with goniosynechialysis[J]. Int Ophthalmol, 2024, 45(1): 2. doi: 10.1007/s10792-024-03367-4
[20] Hou M, Ding YJ, Liu LP, et al. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in primary angle-closure disease: comparison of 7 formulas[J]. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2021, 259(12): 3739-3747. doi: 10.1007/s00417-021-05295-w
[21] Day AC, Cooper D, Burr J, et al. Clear lens extraction for the management of primary angle closure glaucoma: surgical technique and refractive outcomes in the EAGLE cohort[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2018, 102(12): 1658-1662. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2017-311447
[22] Kim NH, Gim Y, Choi KR, et al. Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in patients with a history of acute primary angle-closure attack[J]. BMC Ophthalmol, 2023, 23(1): 482. doi: 10.1186/s12886-023-03232-5
[23] Omoto MK, Torii H, Hayashi K, et al. Ratio of axial length to corneal radius in Japanese patients and accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation based on biometric data[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2020, 218: 320-329. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.03.006
[24] Nishide T, Hayakawa N, Kimura I, et al. Postoperative refractive error following cataract surgery after the first attack of acute primary angle closure[J]. Int Ophthalmol, 2014, 34(4): 805-808. doi: 10.1007/s10792-013-9878-4
[25] Guyton DL, Uozato H, Wisnicki HJ. Rapid determination of intraocular lens tilt and decentration through the undilated pupil[J]. Ophthalmology, 1990, 97(10): 1259-1264. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(90)32422-3
[26] Korynta J, Bok J, Cendelin J. Changes in refraction induced by change in intraocular lens position[J]. J Refract Corneal Surg, 1994, 10(5): 556-564.
[27] Joo J, Whang WJ, Oh TH, et al. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in primary angle closure glaucoma[J]. Korean J Ophthalmol, 2011, 25(6): 375-379. doi: 10.3341/kjo.2011.25.6.375
[28] Jeong J, Song H, Lee JK, et al. The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas[J]. BMC Ophthalmol, 2017, 17(1): 62. doi: 10.1186/s12886-017-0454-y
[29] 邓水凤, 庞柏林, 廖锐, 等. 原发性急性闭角型青光眼合并白内障超乳术后的屈光误差及其相关影响因素[J]. 国际眼科杂志, 2018, 18(8): 1488-1491. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2018.8.32 DENG Shuifeng, PANG Bolin, LIAO Rui, et al. Analysis of the refraction error and the influencing factors after phacoemulsification in acute primary angle-closure glaucoma with cataract[J]. International Eye Science, 2018, 18(8): 1488-1491. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2018.8.32
[30] Ning XN, Yang YH, Yan H, et al. Anterior chamber depth-a predictor of refractive outcomes after age-related cataract surgery[J]. BMC Ophthalmol, 2019, 19(1): 134. doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1144-8
[31] Lee TE, Yoo C, Kim YY. The effects of peripheral anterior synechiae on refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with primary angle-closure disease[J]. Medicine(Baltimore), 2021, 100(14): e24673. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000024673
[32] Suzuki T, Ueta Y, Tachi N, et al. Refractive outcomes after immediate primary phacoemulsification for acute primary angle closure[J]. Sci Rep, 2023, 13(1): 13283. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-40585-9
[33] Hata M, Hirose F, Oishi A, et al. Changes in choroidal thickness and optical axial length accompanying intraocular pressure increase[J]. Jpn J Ophthalmol, 2012, 56(6): 564-568. doi: 10.1007/s10384-012-0173-0
[34] Leydolt C, Findl O, Drexler W. Effects of change in intraocular pressure on axial eye length and lens position[J]. Eye, 2007, 22(5): 657-661. doi: 10.1038/sj.eye.6702709
[1] 黄旗,邓旭雯,王佩佩,陈烨群,古学军. 基于EyeSi手术模拟器评估眼科医师白内障手术水平[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2025, 39(5): 83-88.
[2] 汪盛,黄旭东. 铁死亡与年龄相关性白内障的研究新进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2025, 39(5): 161-168.
[3] 孙鸿翔,曹娟. 老年白内障患者心理脆弱现状及其与希望水平和述情障碍的相关性[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2025, 39(1): 89-95.
[4] 马继玲,王晓明,李琰,穆延潇,靳琳,孔慧,杨乃甫,党光福. 基于CASIA2评价白内障术后3种非球面人工晶状体囊袋内倾斜和偏心的研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2024, 38(4): 76-85.
[5] 买尔哈巴·玉素甫,克里木江·阿不拉,丁琳,秦艳莉,陈雪艺. 伴发于后巩膜葡萄肿的高度近视性白内障眼底病变相关研究[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2023, 37(5): 107-114.
[6] 李婉玉,古学军. 抗中性粒细胞胞浆抗体相关性血管炎并发巩膜炎及白内障1例并文献复习[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2023, 37(4): 149-152.
[7] 韩宜平,张晗. 后囊膜混浊发病机制及前囊膜抛光技术的研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2023, 37(4): 181-186.
[8] 张懿,唐莉. Lowe综合征合并青光眼1例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2023, 37(3): 93-97.
[9] 董曙光,郭凤飞,孟旭霞,颜世龙. 早期开展飞秒激光辅助白内障超声乳化手术前囊膜撕裂原因的回顾性分析[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2023, 37(1): 110-114.
[10] 段练,孟凡兰,党光福. 干眼对屈光性白内障手术的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 1-6.
[11] 孙极综述李灿审校. 白内障术后人工晶状体轴向位置预测与稳定性相关影响因素[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 7-12.
[12] 黄子彦综述 段国平审校. 高阶像差对白内障人工晶状体植入术后视觉质量的影响[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 13-18.
[13] 李彦松综述朱玉广审校. 泪膜稳定性对超声乳化术后视觉质量影响的研究进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 19-25.
[14] 黄子彦综述段国平审校. 不同类型人工晶状体植入术后倾斜和偏心影响视觉质量的研究现状[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 26-31.
[15] 孙璐,张顺华,吴昱舟,陈露璐,曹迪,干霖洋. 关于Alpha角0.5~0.8 mm的患者植入区域折射型人工晶状体的短期临床观察[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2022, 36(6): 32-37.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 万俐佳,鲁海涛,姜义道,刘 辉,李 琴,佘腊枝 . 改良腭咽成形术治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停综合征41例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 204 -205 .
[2] 于青青 ,王跃建 . 硬质耳内镜的临床应用进展[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 222 -224 .
[3] 吉晓滨,邓家德,臧林泉,王 磊,谢 军 . 豚鼠变应性鼻炎模型血清组胺的测定[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 228 -230 .
[4] 向登,卢永田,孙焕吉 . 鼻内镜下修补脑脊液鼻漏19例并文献复习[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 234 -236 .
[5] 殷国华,钟 笑 . 激光减容术治疗舌扁桃体肥大的远期疗效[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 280 -282 .
[6] 刘联合 . 刎颈伤21例[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(3): 283 -284 .
[7] 蔡 谦,苏振忠,文卫平,柴丽萍,叶 辉,滕以书,吴 旋 . 成人打鼾与口咽腔狭窄评分的相关性[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 289 -292 .
[8] 储九圣,黄永久,鲍学礼,田为中 . 甲状舌管癌1例并文献复习[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 322 -324 .
[9] 张吉仲,李大建 . 鼻内镜下鼻中隔软骨或筛骨修补鼻中隔穿孔[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 336 -337 .
[10] 张端和,陈建平,马政旺,王 成,王护国 . 游离、旋转全层皮瓣移植治疗鼻、面部皮肤缺损[J]. 山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报, 2008, 22(4): 338 -339 .
网站版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学耳鼻喉眼学报》编辑部　
地址：山东省济南市山大南路27号（250100）电话：+86-0531-88366912 E-mail: ebhxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发