Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: To investigate the new Hoffer QST (Savini/Taroni) formula (HQST) and compare it with the original Hoffer Q (HQ) and 4 latest generation formulas. SETTING: I.R.C.C.S.-G.B. Bietti Foundation, Rome, Italy. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Refractive outcomes of the HQST, Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, HQ, Kane, and Radial Basis Function (RBF) 3.0 formulas were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed in short (25 mm) axial length eyes. The SD of the prediction error (PE) was investigated using the heteroscedastic method. RESULTS: 1259 eyes of 1259 patients divided in a White group (n=696), implanted with the AcriSof SN60AT (Alcon Labs), and an Asian group (n=563), implanted with the SN60WF (Alcon Labs), were investigated. In the Asian group, the heteroscedastic method did not disclose any significant difference among the SD of the 4 modern formulas (range from 0.333 to 0.346 D), whereas the SD of the HQ formula (0.384 D) was significantly higher. Compared with the original HQ formula, in both White and Asian groups, the HQST formula avoided the mean myopic PE in short eyes and the mean hyperopic PE in long eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The new HQST formula was superior to the original HQ formula and reached statistical and clinical results comparable with those achieved by the BUII, EVO, Kane, and RBF formulas.
Taroni et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: