ESCRS - FPM08.05 - Evaluating The Prediction Accuracy Of The Hill-Rbf 3.0 Formula Using A Heteroscedastic Statistical Method

Evaluating The Prediction Accuracy Of The Hill-Rbf 3.0 Formula Using A Heteroscedastic Statistical Method

Published 2022 - 40th Congress of the ESCRS

Reference: FPM08.05 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/tnhk-1530

Authors: Maria Tsessler* 1 , Shir Cohen 2 , Li Wang 3 , Douglas D Koch 3 , David Zadok 4 , Adi Abulafia 4

1Department of Ophthalmology ,Shaare Zedek Medical Center and the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School,Jerusalem,Israel, 2Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School,Jerusalem,Israel, 3Department of Ophthalmology,Baylor College of Medicine,Houston, Texas,United States, 4Department of Ophthalmology,Shaare Zedek Medical Center and the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School,Jerusalem,Israel

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of the recently released Hill-RBF 3 formula, with and without direct measurements of total corneal power, using a heteroscedastic statistical method for analysis.

Setting

The Cataract unit at the Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.

Methods

Records of consecutive patients who underwent routine cataract surgery between February 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula was compared with that of the Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T formulas, based on biometry measurements by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) with standard keratometry (K), SS-OCT with total keratometry (TK), and an optical low-coherence reflectometer (OLCR). Statistical analysis was applied according to a heteroscedastic statistical method with SD of prediction errors as the main parameter for formula performance.

Results

The study included 153 eyes of 153 patients. The SD values that were obtained by Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.266 to 0.285 diopters [D]) were significantly lower compared with those by Hill-RBF 2.0 (0.290 to 0.309 D), Hoffer Q (0.387 to 0.407 D), Holladay 1 (0.367 to 0.385 D), Holladay 2 (0.386 to 0.401 D), and SRK/T (0.377 to 0.399 D) formulas (P < .036). The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was similar across the SS-OCT (K), SS-OCT (TK), and OLCR methods of measurement (P > .51).

Conclusions

The Hill-RBF 3.0 was more accurate than the Hill-RBF 2.0 and older generation formulas and had similar prediction accuracy compared with new generation formulas. The use of TK did not provide significant improvement to its prediction accuracy.