随着功能性人工晶状体的推广应用，白内障患者的屈光预测准确性日益受到重视。尽管人工晶状体屈光力计算公式在近年来不断发展革新，但解剖参数异常或既往有其他眼病、眼部手术史的白内障患者屈光预测仍存在挑战。根据生物学参数特点与病史选择适合的人工晶状体屈光力计算公式是准确进行白内障手术屈光预测的重要保障。

With the widespread application of functional intraocular lense (IOL), the accuracy of refractive prediction in cataract patients is increasingly important. Although IOL power calculation formulas have been innovated continuously in recent years, there are still challenges in predicting refractive powerin cataract patients with abnormal anatomical parameters, ocular comorbidities, or a history of ocular surgery. Based on the the characteristics of biological parameters and medical history to selcet appropriate IOL power formula, it is an important guarantee for accurate refractive prediction in cataract patients.

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：评估新一代基于人工智能(artificial intelligence,AI)的人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)计算公式的准确性。方法：本研究为回顾性研究，纳入因白内障行晶状体超声乳化联合IOL植入术的262例患者262眼。在术前，通过IOLMaster700获取角膜曲率、角膜白到白、中央角膜厚度、前房深度、晶状体厚度以及眼轴长度。使用第三代公式(SRK/T、Holladay 1和Hoffer Q)、Barrett UniversalⅡ(BUⅡ)、新一代AI公式(Kane、Pearl-DGS、Hill-RBF 3.0、Hoffer QST和Jin-AI)对术后屈光状态进行计算，并与术后实际的屈光状态进行比较。在将预测误差(prediction error,PE)归零后，分析了各公式的标准差(standard deviation,SD)、绝对误差均值(mean absolute error,MAE)、绝对误差中位数(median absolute error,MedAE)以及PE在±0.25、±0.50、±1.00、±2.00 D范围内的百分比。结果：基于AI的IOL屈光力计算公式的SD、MAE和MedAE的范围分别为0.37 D(Kane和Jin-AI)至0.39 D(Hoffer QST)、0.28 D(Hill-RBF 3.0和Jin-AI)至0.31 D(Hoffer QST)以及0.21 D(Hill-RBF3.0和Jin-AI)至0.24 D(HofferQST)；均低于第三代公式(SD：0.43 D~0.45 D；MAE：0.34 D；MedAE：0.25 D~0.28 D)。在所有公式中，Jin-AI公式预测误差在±0.50 D的比例最高，为84.73%，Kane(84.35%)和BUⅡ(83.97%)公式次之。结论：在IOL屈光力预测上，与传统第三代公式相比，新一代基于AI的公式表现出更高的准确性，可以使更多的患者在术后获得预期的屈光状态。

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of new generation artificial intelligence (AI)-based intraocular lens (IOL)power calculation formulas. Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 262 eyes from 262 patients with cataract who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification combined with IOL implantation. Keratometry, corneal white-to-white, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and axial length were measured by the IOL Master 700 before surgery. Predicted refractive errors were calculated by the third-generation formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q), Barrett UniversalⅡ (BUⅡ), and the newer-generation AI formulas (Kane, Pearl-DGS, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer QST, and Jin-AI), and were compared with the actual postoperative refractive value. After adjusting the prediction error (PE) to zero, the standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentage of a PE within the range of ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ±2.00 D were analyzed. Results: The SD, MAE, and MedAE of the AI-based formulas ranged from 0.37 D (Kane and Jin-AI) to 0.39 D (Hoffer QST), 0.28 D (Hill-RBF 3.0 and Jin-AI) to 0.31 D (Hoffer QST), and 0.21 D (Hill-RBF 3.0 and Jin-AI) to 0.24 D (Hoffer QST), respectively. These values were all lower than those of the third-generation formula (SD: 0.43 D to 0.45 D; MAE: 0.34 D; MedAE: 0.25 D to 0.28 D). Among all the formulas, the Jin-AI formula had the highest proportion of a PE within ±0.50 D (84.73%), followed by Kane (84.35%) and BUⅡ (83.97%) formulas. Conclusion: The new AI-based IOL formulas show higher accuracy compared with the traditional third-generation ones in predicting IOL power. thereby enabling more patients to achieve the expected refractive outcomes after surgery

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：分析角膜后前表面曲率半径比值(B/F比值)与年龄相关性白内障患者术后屈光误差的关系，探讨B/F比值对人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)度数计算精确性的影响。方法：选取2019年3—11月在天津医科大学眼科医院白内障中心就诊，并拟行单眼白内障手术的年龄相关性白内障患者共197例(197眼)，术前应用Pentacam眼前节分析仪测量患者眼前节生物参数，并以B/F比值下限25%、上限25%为界将患者分为下25%组、25%～75%组、上25%组。术后3个月应用全自动电脑验光仪评估患者术后屈光状态，并计算患者术后屈光误差(postoperative refractive error,PE)，比较三组平均屈光误差(mean refractive error,ME)、平均绝对误差(mean absolute error,MAE)、中位数绝对误差(median absolute error,MedAE)以及屈光误差在±0.25、±0.50、±0.75、±1.00、>±1.00 D范围内百分比差异。结果：B/F比值与年龄相关性白内障患者术后屈光误差呈中度相关(r=?0.445, P<0.001)。随着B/F比值增大，患者术后屈光状态由远视向近视漂移，术后3个月MAE、MedAE分别为0.55 D、0.46 D。屈光误差在±0.25、±0.50、±0.75、±1.00、>±1.00 D范围的百分比分别为29.4%、52.8%、71.6%、87.6%、12.7%。根据正常年龄相关性白内障人群B/F比值优化得到的矫正角膜折射指数计算角膜曲率后，MAE、MedAE分别为0.51、0.43 D，均低于矫正前(P<0.05)。结论：B/F比值对年龄相关性白内障患者术后屈光状态有影响。随着B/F比值的增加，白内障患者术后屈光状态由远视逐渐向近视漂移，且B/F比值越偏离正常平均值，患者的屈光误差绝对值越大。

Objective: To analyze the relationship between corneal B/F ratio and postoperative refractive error in age-related cataract patients, and to explore the impact of B/F ratio on the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation. Methods: A total of 197 age-related cataract patients (197 eyes) who were treated in the cataract center of our hospital from March 2019 to November 2019 and were going to undergo monocular cataract surgery were selected. The biological parameters of the anterior segment were measured by Pentacam anterior segment analyzer before surgery, and the patients were divided into three groups (25% below the B/F ratio, 25%~75%, and 25% below the B/F ratio) with the lower limit and the upper limit of 25%. Three months after surgery, the postoperative refractive state of patients was evaluated by automatic computerized refractometer, and the postoperative refractive error (PE) was calculated, and the percentage differences of mean refractive error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and refractive error in the range of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00 and < ±1.00D were evaluated. Results: The B/F ratio was moderately correlated with postoperative refractive error in age-related cataract patients (r= ?0.445, P < 0.001). With the increase of B/F ratio, the refractive state of patients shifted from hyperopia to myopia after surgery, and the MAE and MedAE were 0.55 D and 0.46 D respectively in 3 months after surgery. The percentages of refractive error in the range of ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00 and < ±1.00 D were 29.4%, 52.8%, 71.6%, 87.6% and 12.7%, respectively. After adjusting the corneal curvature according to the B/F ratio of the population based on our previous study, MAE and MedAE were 0.51 D and 0.43 D, respectively, which were lower than those before correction (P< 0.05). Conclusions: There is a correlation between B/F ratio and postoperative refractive error in age-related cataract patients. As the B/F ratio increased, the refractive state of the patient gradually drifted from farsightedness to myopia after cataract surgery, and the more the B/F ratio deviated from the normal average, the greater the absolute value of the patient's refractive error.

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：探讨白内障人群角膜屈光力(corneal refractive power,CRP)的分布特点及与眼生物学参数的相关因素分析。方法：回顾性横断面研究福州眼科医院2019年3月至2022年7月就诊的40岁以上白内障人群共23035眼，使用OA-2000测量其眼轴(axial length,AL)、CRP、前房深度(anterior chamber depth,ACD)、晶状体厚度(lens thickness,LT)、角膜水平直径即白到白(white-to-white,W T W)、中央角膜厚度(central corneal thickness,CCT)。绘制各眼生物学参数及年龄Spearman相关性热力图，绘制CRP与AL、CRP与WTW散点拟合图。将CRP与上述参数及年龄进行Spearman相关性分析，分段数据的线性关系使用Pearson分析及线性回归分析。结果：白内障人群CRP为(44.36±1.52)D，在总体数据中CRP与AL为非线性相关；但在分段数据中存在线性相关：当AL≤25.06 mm，CRP与AL负线性相关(R2 =0.397，P<0.001)；当AL>25.06 mm，CRP与AL正线性相关(R2 =0.045，P<0.001)；无论AL长短，CRP与WTW、CCT均呈负相关。在总体数据中，CRP与WTW也存在非线性关系；但在分段数据中存在线性相关：当10.52 mm≤WTW≤12.46 mm，CRP与WTW负线性相关(R2 =0.149，P<0.001)，并与AL、ACD、CCT呈负相关。结论：CRP与AL、WTW呈非线性相关，使用CRP优化计算人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)屈光力时需适当考虑AL、WTW与CRP的相关性。

Objective: To investigate the distribution characteristics of corneal refractive power (CRP), and analyze the correlation between corneal refractive power and ocular biometric parameters in cataract patients. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 2,3035 eyes of cataract patients over 40 years old, who visited Fuzhou Eye Hospital during the period between March 2019 and July 2022. The subjects' examination results of axial length (AL), corneal refractive power (CRP), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), horizontal corneal diameter (WTW), central corneal thickness (CCT) were measured by OA-2000. Spearman correlation thermograms of bilological parameters and age for each eyes were worked out. The plot scatter fitting plots of CRP and AL, CRP and WTW were made. Spearman correlation analysis was made among CRP, above-mentioned parameters and age. Linear relationships of the segmented data were analyzed with Pearson and linear regression analysis. Results: In the cataract patients, CRP was (44.36 ± 1.52) D. There was a non-linear correlation between CRP and AL in the total data. However, there was a linear relationship in the segmented data. When AL ≤ 25.06 mm, CRP was negatively linearly correlated with AL (R2 =0.397, P<0.001). When AL>25.06 mm, CRP was weakly positively correlated with AL (R2 =0.045, P<0.001). Regardless of the length of AL, CRP was negatively correlated with WTW and CCT. There was also a nonlinear relationship between CRP and WTW in the total data. But there was a linear correlation in the segmented data.When 10.52 mm ≤ WTW ≤ 12.46 mm, the negative linear correlation was found between CRP and WTW (R2 =0.149, P<0.001), while there was negative correlation among CRP, AL, ACD, and CCT. Conclusion: There is a non-linear correlation among CRP, AL and WTW. To optimize the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) refractive power with CRP, it is necessary to consider the correlation between AL, WTW, and CRP.

目的：比较Alcon Acrysof IQ PanOptix TFNT00 (PanOptix)晶状体常数优化前后对人工晶状体(intraocular lens,IOL)度数计算准确性的影响，以及不同眼轴长度晶状体常数优化的效果。方法：回顾性收集2021年6月—2022年3月在上海爱尔眼科医院行白内障超声乳化手术联合植入PanOptix IOL患者的术前眼球生物学测量参数、植入IOL度数和术后1~3个月的显然验光结果。联合SRK/T、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、Haigis公式，通过回归法计算优化的晶状体常数A、pACD、SF，通过多元线性回归计算优化的晶状体常数a0、a1和a2。观察晶状体常数优化前后平均绝对预测误差值(mean absolute error,MAE)及中位绝对预测误差值(median absolute error,MedAE)，预测误差在±0.25、±0.50、±0.75、±1.00 D以内的百分比的差异，评价晶状体常数优化对IOL计算准确性的影响。随后，按照眼轴长度进行分组(非高度近视组：<26.00 mm; 高度近视组：≥26.00 mm)，比较非高度近视组和高度近视组优化晶状体常数的差异。结果：共92眼(54位患者)纳入研究。优化前的晶状体常数A、pACD、SF、a0、a1和a2分别为119.1、5.63、1.83、1.39、0.40和0.10；优化后分别为119.35、6.14、2.36、?3.42，0.12和0.34。在全部眼轴组，晶状体常数优化前，SRK/T、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1、Haigis公式的MAE值分别为0.44、0.50、0.54、0.46 D；优化后，MAE值分别为0.43、0.54、0.51、0.35 D，其中Haigis公式优化前后比较差异有统计学意义(P=0.001)。在非高度近视组，晶状体常数优化前，4条公式的MAE值分别为0.46、0.40、0.40、0.42 D；优化后，MAE值分别为0.46 D、0.38 D、0.39 D、0.38 D，比较差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。在高度近视组，晶状体常数优化前，4条公式的MAE值分别为0.42、0.59、0.66、0.50 D；优化后，MAE值分别为0.36、0.48、0.47、0.31 D，其中Holladay 1和Haigis公式优化前后比较差异有统计学意义(P 分别为 0.020、0.002)。结论：PanOptix IOL的晶状体常数优化可以提高IOL度数计算的准确性，在高度近视组中比非高度近视组中优化意义更大。

Objective: To assess the benefits of intraocular lens (IOL) constant optimization of Alcon Acrysof IQ PanOptix TFNT00 (PanOptix) on the accuracy of IOL power calculation, and the effects of constant optimization between different axial length (AL) groups were further compared. Methods: Patients who underwent phacoemulsification and implantation with PanOptix IOL between June, 2021 and March, 2022 were included in this retrospective study. The preoperative biological ocular parameters, implanted IOL power, and subjective 1-3 months postoperative refraction were collected. Combined with SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas, the optimized IOL constant A, surgeon factor (SF), post-surgery anterior chamber depth (pACD), and a0, a1, a2 were back-calculated. Refractive outcomes using optimized IOL constants were re-calculated combined with the corresponding formulas. Compare the mean absolute error (MAE), medium absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with IOL prediction errors (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 (diopter)D when using the optimized constants and the manufacture constants. Patients were divided into two groups according to AL (non-high myopia: <26.0 mm; high myopia: ≥26 mm), compare the difference of IOL constant optimization between AL subgroups. Results: A total of 92 eyes of 54 patients were enrolled. The manufacture lens constant of A, pACD, SF, a0, a1 and a2 are respectively 119.1, 5.63, 1.83, 1.39, 0.4 and 0.1; and the optimized values are respectively 119.35, 6.14, 2.36, ?3.42, 0.12 and 0.34. In all patients group, with manufacture lens constant, the MAE values of SRKT, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 and Haigis formula are 0.44, 0.50, 0.54, 0.46 D; with optimized lens constants, the MAE values are 0.43, 0.54, 0.51, 0.35 D, and there is a statistical difference of Haigis formula after optimization (P=0.001). In non-high myopia group, with manufacture lens constant, the MAE values are 0.46, 0.40, 0.40, 0.42 D; with optimized lens constants, the MAE values are0.46, 0.38, 0.39, 0.38 D, and no statistical difference has been found(P>0.05). In high myopia group, with manufacture lens constant, the MAE values are 0.42, 0.59, 0.66, 0.50 D; with optimized lens constants, the MAE values are 0.36, 0.48, 0.47, 0.31 D, and there are statistical differences of Holladay 1 and Haigis formula after optimization (P = 0.020, 0.002). Conclusion: IOL constant optimization of PanOptix IOL can improve the accuracy of IOL calculation, which is more significant in the high myopia group.

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.

该文报道一例激光原位角膜磨镶(laser-assisted in situ keratectomy,LASIK)术后行白内障超声乳化摘除联合多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体植入术的病例。该患者为42岁女性患者，20年前外院行双眼LASIK手术，现因右眼视物模糊1年就诊。术前IOLMaster检查患者右眼眼轴长度29.66 mm，前房深度3.18 mm，晶状体厚度4.75 mm，白到白距离11.6 mm，前表面及全角膜散光分别为1.01 D@67 °及0.91 D@56 °。Pentacam角膜地形图15 °范围模拟角膜屈光力得到的角膜散光为1.2 D@58.1 °，为规则领结型。患者眼底检查未见明显异常，因其脱镜意愿强烈，植入双焦点散光矫正型IOL(德国Zeiss公司AT LISA toric 909M)。根据Barrett True-K Toric公式测量的后表面散光计算结果进行手术规划，选择+17 D球镜1.5 D柱镜Zeiss 909M IOL，植入轴位55 °。术后1个月患者裸眼远视力0.8，35 cm裸眼近视力1.0，最佳矫正远视力–0.25 DS/–0.5 DC×120 °至1.0，患者满意。提示经过详细的术前评估及规划，并与患者充分沟通，多焦点散光矫正型人工晶状体可以在部分适合的LASIK术后患者中取得良好效果。

It is reported a case of cataract phacoemulsification combined with toric multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation after LASIK surgery in this article. A 42 year-old female patient who underwent bilateral LASIK surgery in other hospital 20 years ago. She visited our hospital due to blurred vision in her right eye for one year. The preoperative IOL Master examination results showed an axial length of 29.66 mm, anterior chamber depth of 3.18 mm, lens thickness of 4.75 mm, white to white distance of 11.6 mm, and anterior surface and total corneal astigmatism of 1.01 D @ 67 ° and 0.91 D @ 56 °, respectively in right eye. The corneal astigmatism measured by Pentacam using 15°range simulated keratometry is 1.2 D@ 58.1 °, which is a regular bow tie shape.No obvious abnormalities was found in the patient's fundus examination. Due to her strong desire to get rid of the glassesa toric bifocal IOL (AT LISA Toric 909M, Zeiss, Germany) was implanted.Based onthe IOL power calculation results of Barrett True-K Toric formula with measured posterior corneal astigmatism, an IOL with Sph 17.0 D/Cyl1.5 D/A 55°was chosen. One month after surgery, the patient's uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/25, 35 cm uncorrected near visual acuity was 20/20, and the best corrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 with a prescription of –0.25 DS/–0.5 DC × 120 °. The patient was satisfied with the outcome. After detailed preoperative evaluation and design, and sufficient communication with patients, toric multifocal IOL implantation can achieve good results in some apropriated for the patients after LASIK surgery.

该文报道了一例40岁女性患者，因“双眼渐进性视物模糊3个月”就诊。患者既往于2005年因高度近视行双眼准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术 (LASIK)。最佳矫正视力OD：0.2 (–11.00 DS/ –1.25 DC×170 °)，OS：0.7 (–4.00 DS/ –0.75 DC×25 °)。双眼角膜透明，前房中深，晶状体混浊，豹纹状眼底伴后巩膜葡萄肿。诊断为双眼并发性白内障，并行右眼白内障超声乳化联合人工晶状体 (IOL) 植入术，术中植入+14.0 D IOL一枚，目标屈光度为–0.5 D。术后1周裸眼视力0.3，验光结果示右眼屈光度+2.75 DS，最佳矫正视力0.7。术后2周行右眼IOL置换术，由+14.0 D置换为+17.0 D。右眼术后1周裸眼视力0.8，验光结果示右眼屈光度–0.75 DC×15 °。

It is reported in this article that a 40-year-old female patient presented with "progressive blurred vision of both eyes for 3 months". The patient underwent bilateral laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) because of high myopia in 2005. It was recorded that her best corrected visual acuity was 0.2 (–11.00 DS/ –1.25 DC×170 °) in the right eye and 0.7 (–4.00 DS/ –0.75 DC×25 °) in the left, and clear cornea, normal anterior chamber, cloudy lens, tessellated fundus with posterior staphyloma in both eyes. The patient was diagnosed with bilateral complicated cataract. Phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens (IOL, +14.0 diopter (D)) implantation was performed on the right eye, with the target –0.5D refractive diopter . One week after surgery, it was recorded that the uncorrected visual acuity of the right eye was 0.3, and the best corrected visual acuity was 0.7 (+2.75 DS). IOL replacement of the right eye was performed two weeks after surgery, the +14.0 D IOL was replaced by +17.0 D IOL. One week after surgery, the uncorrected visual acuity of the right eye was 0.8 (–0.75 DC×15 °).

准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis,LASIK)是矫正屈光不正的重要角膜屈光手术方式之一。经过准分子激光切削的角膜，生物测量数据发生改变。对于此类患者，通过常规测量获得的参数数据以及使用常规计算公式确定的IOL屈光度将变得不再准确，由此将会导致术后较大的屈光误差，进而影响患者的视觉质量。本文报道一例46岁的男性白内障患者。该患者既往双眼屈光不正，曾接受过LASIK手术治疗。白内障术前角膜地形图检查发现该患者双眼存在角膜偏心切削，这为IOL屈光度的确定带来困难。手术医生通过角膜地形图判断角膜切削的居中性，在特定区域内选择角膜曲率K值，并采用Barrett True K公式计算出IOL屈光度。白内障术后患眼屈光误差相对较小，视力提高，视觉质量改善。

Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is a crucial corneal refractive surgery for correcting refractive errors. The cornea, after undergoing excimer laser ablation, undergoes changes in biometric measurements. For such patients, conventional measurements and IOL power calculations based on standard formulas may no longer be accurate, leading  to significant postoperative refractive errors and subsequently impacting the patient's visual quality. This article presents a case of a 46-year-old male cataract patient who had a history of refractive errors in both eyes and had previously undergone LASIK surgery. Preoperative corneal topography revealed corneal eccentric ablation in both eyes, posing challenges in determining IOL power. The surgeon assessed the centration of corneal ablation using corneal topography, selected the keratometry value (K value) within specific corneal regions, and calculated the IOL power using the Barrett True K formula. Postoperatively, the cataract patient experienced relatively minor refractive errors, leading to improved vision and enhanced visual quality.