Hoffer Q¿Í SRK/T Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼ µµ¼ö °è»ê °ø½ÄÀÇ ÀÌ·ÐÀû ÀÓ»óÀû ºñ±³
Theoretical and Clinical Comparison of the Hoffer Q and SRK/T Formulas

´ëÇѾȰúÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 55±Ç 1È£ p.85 ~ p.92

Á¤ÁøÈ£(Jeong Jin-Ho) - Á¦ÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
±è¼º°ï(Kim Sung-Gon) - Á¦ÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌÇýÁø(Lee Hye-Jin) - Á¦ÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
À̼±È£(Lee Sun-Ho) - Á¦ÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç
Â÷µ¿¹Î(Cha Dong-Min) - Á¦ÁÖ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ¾È°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû: Hoffer Q¿Í SRK/T µµ¼ö °è»ê°ø½ÄÀÇ Á¤È®µµ¸¦ Æò°¡Çϰí, µÎ °ø½Ä °£ÀÇ Â÷À̸¦ À¯¹ßÇÏ´Â »ýü °èÃøÀÎÀÚ¸¦ È®ÀÎÇÑ´Ù.

´ë»ó°ú ¹æ¹ý: º» ¿¬±¸´Â ÀüÇâÀû ¿¬±¸¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ½ÃÇàµÇ¾úÀ¸¸ç, 1¸íÀÇ ¼úÀÚ¿¡ ÀÇÇØ ÇÕº´Áõ ¾øÀÌ ½ÃÇàµÈ 365¾ÈÀÇ ¹é³»Àå ¼ö¼ú¾È¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© Á¢ÃË ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ ¾È°èÃø±â¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ¾ÈÃàÀåÀ» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Hoffer Q ¹× SRK/T °ø½ÄÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼ µµ¼ö¸¦ Á¤ÇÏ¿´°í, µÎ µµ¼ö °è»ê°ø½ÄÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÄ¡ Â÷ÀÌ(expected disparity between the formulas, EDF)¿Í ¼úÀü »ýü°èÃøÀÎÀÚµé°úÀÇ »ó°ü¼ºÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ 6ÁÖ°¿¡ Çö¼º±¼Àý°Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿© °ø½ÄÀÇ ¼úÈÄ ¿ÀÂ÷¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´°í, ´ÙÁßȸ±ÍºÐ¼®À» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿© °ø½ÄÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷¿¡ ¼úÀü »ýü °èÃøÀÎÀÚµéÀÌ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: Àüü ȯÀÚ±ºÀÇ 17.8%¿¡¼­ EDFÀÇ Å©±â°¡ 0.4µð¿ÉÅ͸¦ ÃʰúÇÏ¿´´Ù. EDF´Â °¢¸·°î·ü°ú ¾ÈÃàÀåÀÇ °ö°ú ³ôÀº »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù (R2=0.855, p£¼0.001). ´ÙÁß È¸±Í ºÐ¼®»ó °¢¸· ³­½Ã, Àü¹æ±íÀÌ, ¼öÁ¤Ã¼ µÎ²²°¡ µÎ µµ¼ö°è»ê°ø½ÄÀÇ ¼úÈÄ ¿ÀÂ÷ Á¤µµ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ ¿µÇâÀ» ³¢Ä¡´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.

°á·Ð: µÎ °ø½ÄÀº Á¤È®ÇÑ Àΰø¼öÁ¤Ã¼ µµ¼ö¸¦ ¿¹ÃøÇϴµ¥ ÀÖ¾î Àü¹ÝÀûÀ¸·Î ¸Å¿ì ¿ì¼öÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ µµ¼ö °è»ê°ø½Ä°£ÀÇ ¿¹ÃøÄ¡ Â÷ÀÌ´Â °¢¸·°î ·ü°ú ¾ÈÃàÀåÀÇ °ö°ú ¸Å¿ì ³ôÀº »ó°ü°ü°è¸¦ ³ªÅ¸³»¾ú´Ù. °ø½ÄµéÀÇ ¿ÀÂ÷Á¤µµ´Â °¢¸· ³­½Ã³ª Àü¹æ±íÀÌ, ¶Ç´Â ¼öÁ¤Ã¼ µÎ²²¿Í °°ÀÌ Hoffer Q °ø½ÄÀ̳ª SRK/T °ø½ÄÀÇ °è»ê¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â ÀÎÀÚÀÇ ¿µÇâÀ» ´õ ¸¹ÀÌ ¹Þ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
Purpose: To evaluate the biometric conditions causing increased disparity in the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power between the Hoffer Q and SRK/T formulas.

Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted on 365 uneventful, cataract surgeries performed at a tertiary care center by one surgeon. The IOL power was calculated using both the Hoffer Q and SRK/T formulas with A-scan biometry. For a selected IOL power, the expected disparity between the 2 formulas (EDF) was measured and the EDF value was used to categorize the cases. The resultant error associated with each formula was determined at postoperative 6 weeks. KAL was defined as the product of mean corneal power (K) and axial length (AL). Postoperative errors of both formulas were calculated and their association with preoperative biometry measurements analyzed.

Results: In 17.8% of the cases, the EDF was larger than 0.4 D, possibly leading to different IOL diopter recommendations. The EDF value and the product of corneal curvature and axial length were significantly correlated (R2 = 0.855, p £¼ 0.001). Multiple regression analysis of causative preoperative biometric factors on the postoperative formula errors showed that astigmatism, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and lens thickness (LT) were significantly associated with Hoffer Q error and SRK/T error.

Conclusions: Overall, both formulas performed very well when recommending the correct IOL power. The cause of disparity between the predicted refraction for the 2 formulas was more associated with KAL than K or AL alone. Astigmatism, ACD, and LT were the causative factors for the postoperative errors in both formulas.

Ű¿öµå

Effective lens position, Hoffer Q formula, IOL formula comparison, SRK/T formula
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Ű¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆÇ³âµµ(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå