To evaluate the predictive accuracy of modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and axial length (AL) adjusted traditional IOL formulas, including Wang-Koch and Cooke-modified AL (CMAL) method, in long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, and to compare refractive prediction error variances with C-loop IOLs. Retrospective consecutive case series study. Data from 391 eyes with Zeiss 509 M and 302 eyes with Alcon SN6CWS implants in highly myopic patients, following cataract surgery from January 2019 to November 2023, were collected. One eye per patient was selected. Predictive outcomes of 15 modern formulas (Barrett Universal II (BU II), Cooke K6 (K6), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Karmona, Ladas AI, Naeser 2, Olsen, Pearl-DGS, Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0, T2, VRF-G, Zhu-Lu, and Z-Calc) and 4 traditional IOL formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) with AL adjusted methods, were evaluated. The mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error (MAE), root-mean-square absolute prediction error (RMSAE) and the proportions of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 Diopter (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analyzed. Top 10 RMSAE-ranked formulas underwent further subgroup analysis based on AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry (K). For the 509 M group, RMSAE ranking for the top 10 IOL formulas were the RBF 3.0 (0.432), Zhu-Lu (0.436), Olsen (0.436), EVO 2.0 (0.437), Pearl-DGS (0.447), K6 (0.452), VRF-G (0.454), Naeser 2 (0.464), Haigis-CMAL (0.465) and Karmona (0.477). Karmona and Naeser 2 showed poorer performance in the extremely long AL and steep K subgroups, respectively ( ≤ 0.042). Haigis-CMAL accuracy was significantly lower in shallow ACD and flat K subgroups ( ≤ .045). The SN6CWS group showed significantly lower MAE and RMSAE compared to the 509 M group for the BU II, EVO 2.0, Hoffer-QST, Kane, Pearl-DGS, and Zhu-Lu formulas ( ≤ .024). In long eyes with plate-haptic IOLs, RBF 3.0 performed best, closely followed by Zhu-Lu, Olsen, and EVO 2.0; Karmona and Naeser 2 are discouraged for extreme AL and steep K conditions, respectively; Haigis-CMAL is not suggested for shallow ACD and flat K cases. Refractive outcomes in eyes implanted with a C-loop design IOL were more accurate than for those implanted with a plate-haptic design, for most tested formulas.

中文翻译：

---

现代人工晶状体配方对于植入板式触觉人工晶状体的高度近视眼的准确性


评估现代人工晶状体 (IOL) 公式和轴长 (AL) 调整的传统 IOL 公式（包括 Wang-Koch 和 Cooke 修正 AL (CMAL) 方法）对于长眼板式触觉 IOL 的预测准确性，并进行比较C 环 IOL 的屈光预测误差差异。回顾性连续病例系列研究。收集了 2019 年 1 月至 2023 年 11 月白内障手术后高度近视患者佩戴蔡司 509 M 的 391 只眼睛和佩戴爱尔康 SN6CWS 植入物的 302 只眼睛的数据。每个患者选择一只眼睛。 15 个现代公式的预测结果（Barrett Universal II (BU II)、Cooke K6 (K6)、正视验证光学 (EVO) 2.0、Hoffer-QST、Kane、Karmona、Ladas AI、Naeser 2、Olsen、Pearl-DGS、Radial采用 AL 调整方法对基函数 (RBF) 3.0、T2、VRF-G、Zhu-Lu 和 Z-Calc）和 4 个传统 IOL 公式（Haigis、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1 和 SRK/T）进行了评估。平均预测误差、平均绝对预测误差（MAE）、均方根绝对预测误差（RMSAE）以及PE在±0.25屈光度（D）、±0.50 D、±0.75 D和±1.00范围内的眼睛比例D 进行了分析。 RMSAE 排名前 10 的公式根据 AL、前房深度 (ACD) 和角膜曲率 (K) 进行了进一步的亚组分析。对于 509 M 组，前 10 个 IOL 配方的 RMSAE 排名为 RBF 3.0 (0.432)、Zhu-Lu (0.436)、Olsen (0.436)、EVO 2.0 (0.437)、Pearl-DGS (0.447)、K6 (0.452) )、VRF-G (0.454)、Naeser 2 (0.464)、Haigis-CMAL (0.465) 和 Karmona (0.477)。 Karmona 和 Naeser 2 分别在极长 AL 和陡峭 K 子组中表现较差（≤ 0.042）。 Haigis-CMAL 准确度在浅 ACD 和平坦 K 亚组中显着较低 ( ≤ .045)。 对于 BU II、EVO 2.0、Hoffer-QST、Kane、Pearl-DGS 和 Zhu-Lu 公式，SN6CWS 组的 MAE 和 RMSAE 显着低于 509 M 组 ( ≤ .024)。在使用板式触觉 IOL 的长眼中，RBF 3.0 表现最佳，紧随其后的是 Zhu-Lu、Olsen 和 EVO 2.0； Karmona 和 Naeser 2 分别不适合极端 AL 和陡峭 K 条件； Haigis-CMAL 不建议用于浅 ACD 和平 K 病例。对于大多数测试公式而言，植入 C 环设计 IOL 的眼睛的屈光结果比植入板触觉设计的眼睛更准确。