Barrett True-K Research Articles

Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

This retrospective study compared postoperative prediction errors of recent formulas using standard- or total keratometry (K or TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic LASIK patients. It included 56 eyes of 56 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery, with at least 1-month follow-up at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo or Hayashi Eye Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. Prediction errors, absolute errors, and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated using nine formulas: Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K TK, Haigis-L, Haigis TK, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, Hoffer QST PK, EVO K, and EVO PK. Statistical comparisons utilized Friedman test, Conover’s all-pairs post-hoc, Cochran’s Q, and McNemar post-hoc testing. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) was compared with heteroscedastic testing. Barrett True-K TK had the lowest median predicted refractive error (-0.01). EVO PK had the smallest median absolute error (0.20). EVO PK had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D of the predicted value (58.9%), significantly better than Haigis-L (p = 0.047). EVO PK had the lowest mean RMSE value (0.499). The EVO PK formula yielded the most accurate IOL power calculation in post-myopic LASIK eyes, with TK/PK values enhancing accuracy.

Analysis of factors influencing refractive error in Fuchs eyes undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty triple procedure

PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of current intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and identify factors influencing mean error in eyes undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) triple procedure, that is, DMEK combined...

Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios. Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III. Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas. Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Updating the no-history method in intraocular lens power calculation after myopic laser vision correction.

To describe the Shammas-Cooke formula, an updated no-history (NH) formula for IOL calculation in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC), and to compare the results with the Shammas PL, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K NH formulas. Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (BPEI), The Lennar Foundation Medical Center, University of Miami, Miami, Florida; Dean A. McGee Eye Institute (DMEI), University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and private practice, Lynwood, California, and St Joseph, Michigan. Retrospective observational study. We analyzed 2 large series of cataractous eyes with prior M-LVC. The training set (BPEI series of 330 eyes) was used to derive the new corneal power conversion equation to be used in the new Shammas-Cooke formula and the testing set (165 eyes of 165 patients in the DMEI series) to compare the updated formula with 3 other M-LVC NH formulas on the ASCRS calculator: Shammas PL, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K NH. Mean prediction error was 0.09 ± 0.56 diopters (D), -0.44 ± 0.61 D, -0.47 ± 0.59 D, and -0.18 ± 0.56 D and the mean absolute error was 0.43 D, 0.60 D, 0.61 D, and 0.45 D for the Shammas-Cooke, Shammas PL, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K NH, respectively. The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was 66.7% vs 47.9%, 48.5%, and 65.5%, respectively. The Shammas-Cooke formula performed better than the Shammas PL and Haigis-L (P < .001 for both) and as well as the Barrett True-K NH formula (P = .923).

Accuracy comparison of total keratometry and standard keratometry in intraocular lens power calculations for post-corneal refractive surgery cataract patients

Objective: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using total keratometry (TK) versus standard keratometry (K) in post-corneal refractive surgery cataract patients. Methods: This retrospective case series study included 30 patients (36 eyes) with a history of laser corneal refractive surgery who underwent cataract extraction and IOL implantation at Qingdao Eye Hospital, Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, from September 2022 to December 2023. The cohort comprised 16 males and 14 females, with an average age of (53.6±8.1) years. IOL power was calculated using the K-based Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formulas, as well as the TK-based Haigis and Barrett Universal Ⅱ formulas. Postoperative objective refraction was performed to obtain the actual refractive status of the operated eyes. The refractive prediction error (RPE) was defined as the difference between the actual spherical equivalent and the predicted refraction. The absolute value of the RPE was taken as the refractive absolute error (RAE). Differences in errors calculated by the four formulas were compared. Results: TK showed good consistency with K, with TK being on average 0.50 D lower than K. Analysis of variance revealed statistically significant differences in RPE among the four formulas (P<0.001). The RPE for the TK-based Haigis formula was (0.17±0.09) D, and for the Barrett Universal Ⅱ formula, it was (0.21±0.11) D, both significantly better than the K-based Haigis-L formula (-0.61±0.12) D and Barrett True-K formula (-0.57±0.11) D (all P<0.001). The percentage of eyes with postoperative RPE<±1.00 D was higher for the TK-based Haigis (92%, 33 eyes) and Barrett Universal Ⅱ (86%, 31 eyes) formulas compared to the TK-based Barrett True-K (75%, 27 eyes) and Haigis-L formulas (67%, 24 eyes), with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Conclusions: Compared with K, TK improves the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-corneal refractive surgery patients. Both the TK-based Barrett Universal Ⅱ and Haigis formulas demonstrate high accuracy.

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery.

To evaluate the prediction accuracy of various intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas on American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator and Barrett True-K total keratometry (TK) in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. This retrospective study included eyes with history of myopic laser refractive surgery, which have undergone clear or cataractous lens extraction by phacoemulsification followed by IOL implantation. Those who underwent uneventful crystalline lens extraction were included. Eyes with any complication of refractive surgery or those with eventful lens extraction procedure and those who were lost to follow-up were excluded. Formulas compared were Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS average power, ASCRS maximum power on the ASCRS post-refractive calculator and the IOLMaster 700 Barrett True-K TK. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between the implanted IOL power and the predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS online calculator. Forty post-myopic laser-refractive surgery eyes of 26 patients were included. Friedman's test revealed that Shammas formula, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS maximum power were significantly different from all other formulas (P < 0.00001 for each). Median absolute error (MedAE) was the least for Shammas and Barrett True-K TK formulas (0.28 [0.14, 0.36] and 0.28 [0.21, 0.39], respectively) and the highest for Wang-Koch-Maloney (1.29 [0.97, 1.61]). Shammas formula had the least variance (0.14), while Wang-Koch-Maloney formula had the maximum variance (2.66). In post-myopic laser refractive surgery eyes, Shammas formula and Barrett True-K TK no-history formula on ASCRS calculator are more accurate in predicting IOL powers.

Spherical equivalent prediction analysis in intraocular lens power calculations using Eyetemis: a comprehensive approach.

To compare 2 different datasets, using Eyetemis, an online analytical tool designed for assessing the spherical equivalent prediction errors (SEQ-PEs) of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas after cataract surgery. Institutional. Retrospective case series. The study comprised 2 distinct datasets of patients who had undergone successful cataract surgery. Dataset 1 includes standard eyes, whereas Dataset 2 includes eyes with keratoconus. An online tool was used for SEQ-PE analysis across the 2 datasets, adhering to ISO standards for evaluating accuracy based on trueness and precision. The tool incorporates robust t tests for comparing the trimmed mean of the data, adjusting for heteroscedasticity. IOL constants in Dataset 1 were optimized for the comparison of Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (BUII) formulas. In Dataset 2, IOL constants from the IOLCon website were used for the comparison of the BUII and its designated KCN version: Barrett TrueK Keratoconus (TrueK [KCN]). For Dataset 1, the trimmed mean SEQ-PE values of all formulas were not significantly different from zero. BUII had superior precision and accuracy compared with all other formulas, except from Haigis ( P ≤ .04). For Dataset 2, BUII's trimmed-mean SEQ-PE was significantly different from zero (0.59 diopters [D], P < .01), unlike the TrueK (KCN) (0.12 D, P = .10). In addition, TrueK (KCN) exhibited enhanced precision and accuracy relative to BUII ( P < .01). The online analysis tool provides a streamlined approach for assessing the prediction accuracy of SEQ refraction after cataract surgery, effectively evaluating trueness, precision, and overall accuracy through the use of advanced statistical methods.

Refractive outcomes using Barrett formulas and patient characteristics of cataract surgery patients with and without prior LASIK/PRK.

The goal of this study is to describe characteristics of cataract surgery patients who previously underwent laser in situ keratomileusis/photorefractive keratectomy (LASIK/PRK) in comparison to non-LASIK/PRK cataract surgery patients including psychiatric comorbidities, as well as describe refractive prediction error after cataract surgery while accounting for axial length (AL) using the Barrett True-K and Barrett Universal II formulas. This was a retrospective study of patients from the University of Colorado Cataract Outcomes Registry. The primary outcomes were refraction prediction error (RPE), mean absolute RPE, and median absolute RPE. Outcomes were stratified by five axial length groups. Univariate and multivariate models for RPE were stratified by the AL group. Two hundred eighty-one eyes with prior LASIK/PRK and 3101 eyes without are included in the study. Patients with prior LASIK/PRK were significantly younger: 67.0 vs 69.9years, p < 0.0001. The LASIK/PRK group had significantly better mean pre-operative BCVA in comparison to the non-LASIK group, logMAR 0.204 vs logMAR 0.288, p = 0.003. The LASIK/PRK group had significantly lower rates of cardiovascular disease (18.5% vs 29.3%, p < 0.001), hypertension (49.1% vs 59.3%, p < 0.012), and type 2 diabetes (10.7% vs 26.0%, p < 0.001), and no significant difference in psychiatric disease. The absolute RPE was higher for the LASIK group for all ALs, but only significantly higher for eyes with AL less than 25mm. Patient eyes with prior LASIK/PRK surgery undergoing cataract surgery were significantly younger, had significantly less comorbidities, and a significantly better pre-operative BCVA. Using the Barrett formulas, absolute prediction error for eyes with longer ALs was not significantly worse for LASIK/PRK eyes than those without and the difference was smaller for eyes with longer AL.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power formulas in eyes with keratoconus: Multi-center study in Japan.

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas, namely, SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane formula, and Kane formula for keratoconus, for cataract with keratoconus in Japanese eyes. Five surgical sites in Japan. A retrospective case series. Eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery were included. Postoperative refraction was compared with the prediction by the formulas. Visual acuity, manifest spherical equivalent, prediction error (PE), and mean absolute errors (MAEs) were determined 1month postoperatively. The PE within 0.50 diopter (D), 1.00 D, and 2.00 D were compared between IOL formulas. Subgroup analysis based on the steepest keratometry (stage 1, ≤ 48 D; stage 2, > 48 D and ≤ 53 D; and stage 3, > 53 D) was performed. The relationship between PE and preoperative biometric data were assessed. Fifty eyes were included. The MAE of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane keratoconus, and Kane formulas were significantly lower than that of Haigis. A statistically significant difference in the prediction accuracy within ± 0.50 D was found between Kane keratoconus and Haigis. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, SRK/T, and Kane within ± 1.00 D was statistically significant compared with that of Haigis. In stage 3, the Barrett True-K for keratoconus had a significantly lower MAE than SRK/T and Haigis. Keratoconus-specific formulas were more accurate than existing formulas in Japanese eyes. The Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus had higher prediction accuracy in severe keratoconus.

Performance of IOL calculation formulas that use measured posterior corneal power in eyes following myopic laser vision correction.

To compare the predictive accuracy of the biometer-embedded Barrett True-K TK and new total corneal power methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with prior laser vision correction (LVC) for myopia. Academic clinical practice. Retrospective case series. IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR). The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.

A Case of Bilateral Implantation of Diffraction IOL with Extended Depth of Focus in a Patient with a History of Keratorefractive Excimer Laser Surgery

A clinical case of bilateral implantation of EDOF IOL in a patient after LASIK is presented. The standards for assessing visual acuity at an intermediate distance are indicated. A modified version of the test table for the intermediate distance is presented. The obtained functional result corresponds to theoretical ideas about the potential of IOL with a prolonged focus. When calculating the IOL after LASIK, a sufficient degree of accuracy was provided by the formulas Haigis-L, Barrett True-K. The use of data on the total refractive power of the cornea is promising.

Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry versus modern preoperative methods in post-myopic laser vision correction eyes undergoing cataract surgery with capsular tension ring placement

PurposeTo assess the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry (IWA) versus modern intraocular lens formulas in post-myopic laser vision correction (LVC) patients undergoing cataract surgery with capsular tension ring placement.MethodsThis is a retrospective chart review conducted at an academic outpatient center. All post-myopic LVC eyes undergoing cataract surgery with IWA from a single surgeon from 05/2017 to 12/2019 were included. All patients received a capsular tension ring (CTR). Mean numerical error (MNE), median numerical error (MedNE), and percentages of prediction error within 0.50D, 0.75D, and 1.00D were calculated for the above formulas.ResultsTwenty-seven post-myopic LVC eyes from 18 patients were included. In post-myopic LVC, MNE with Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA), Barrett True K (BTK), Haigis, Haigis-L, Shammas, SRK/T, Hill-RBF v3.0, and W-K AL-adjusted Holladay 1 were + 0.224, − 0.094, + 0.193, − 0.231, − 0.372, + 1.013, + 0.860, and + 0.630 (F = 8.49, p < 0.001). MedNE were + 0.125, − 0.145, + 0.175, + 0.333, + 0.333, + 1.100, + 0.880, and + 0.765 (F = 7.89, p < 0.001), respectively. BTK provided improved accuracy in both MNE (p < 0.001) and MedNE (p = .033) when compared to ORA in pairwise analysis. If the ORA vs. BTK-suggested IOL power were routinely selected, 30% and 15% of eyes would have projected hyperopic outcomes, respectively (p = 0.09).ConclusionsOur study suggests that in post-myopic LVC eyes undergoing cataract surgery with CTRs, BTK performed more accurately than ORA with regard to accuracy and yielded a lower percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes. Haigis, Haigis-L, and Shammas yielded similar results to ORA with regard to accuracy and percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes. On average, Shammas and Haigis-L suggested IOLs that would yield outcomes more myopic than expected when compared to BTK.

The Development of a Thick-Lens Post–Myopic Laser Vision Correction Intraocular Lens Calculation Formula

Purpose: To describe the development of the post-myopic laser vision correction (LVC) version of the PEARL-DGS IOL calculation formula and to evaluate its outcomes on an independent test set. Design: Retrospective, mono-centric case series Methods: A modified lens position prediction algorithm was designed along with methods to predict the posterior corneal curvature radius and correct the corneal power measurement error. A different set of previously operated eyes that underwent LVC was used to evaluate the prediction precision of the post-LVC formula. Results: Post-LVC PEARL-DGS formula significantly reduced mean absolute error (MAE) of prediction in comparison to Haigis-L, Shammas and ASCRS average formulas (p<0.001). It exhibited similar postoperative refractive precision as Barrett True-K No History formula (p=0.61). Conclusion: The post-LVC formula development process described in this paper performed as well as the state-of-the-art post-LVC formula on the present test set. Further studies are required to assess its efficacy in other independent sets.

Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures

BackgroundAs the two most prevalent refractive surgeries in China, there is a substantial number of patients who have undergone Femtosecond Laser-assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures. However, there is still limited knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for these patients with a history of FS-LASIK or SMILE.MethodsA total of 100 eyes from 50 postoperative refractive surgery patients were included in this prospective cohort study, with 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone FS-LASIK and 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone SMILE. We utilized a theoretical surgical model to simulate the IOL implantation process in postoperative FS-LASIK and SMILE patients. Subsequently, we performed comprehensive biological measurements both before and after the surgeries, encompassing demographic information, corneal biometric parameters, and axial length. Various formulas, including the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, as a baseline, were employed to calculate IOL power for the patients.ResultsThe Barrett True K (BTK) formula, demonstrated an mean absolute error (AE) within 0.5 D for both FS-LASIK and SMILE groups (0.28 ± 0.25 D and 0.36 ± 0.24 D, respectively). Notably, the FS-LASIK group showed 82% of results differing by less than 0.25 D compared to preoperative BUII results. The Barrett True K No History (BTKNH) formula, which also incorporates measured posterior corneal curvature, performed similarly to BTK in both groups. Additionally, the Masket formula, relying on refractive changes based on empirical experience, displayed promising potential for IOL calculations in SMILE patients compared with BTK (p = 0.411).ConclusionThe study reveals the accuracy and stability of the BTK and BTKNH formulas for IOL power calculations in myopic FS-LASIK/SMILE patients. Moreover, the Masket formula shows encouraging results in SMILE patients. These findings contribute to enhancing the predictability and success of IOL power calculations in patients with a history of refractive surgery, providing valuable insights for clinical practice. Further research and larger sample sizes are warranted to validate and optimize the identified formulas for better patient outcomes.

An update on intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery.

There is an ever-growing body of research regarding intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). This review intends to summarize recent data and offer updated recommendations. Postmyopic LASIK/PRK eyes have the best refractive outcomes when multiple methods are averaged, or when Barrett True-K is used. Posthyperopic LASIK/PRK eyes also seem to do best when Barrett True-K is used, but with more variable results. With both aforementioned methods, using measured total corneal power incrementally improves results. For post-SMILE eyes, the first nontheoretical data favors raytracing. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery are less accurate and more variable compared to virgin eyes. Surgeons may simplify their approach to IOL power calculations in postmyopic and posthyperopic LASIK/PRK by using Barrett True-K, and employing measured total corneal power when available. For post-SMILE eyes, ray tracing seems to work well, but lack of accessibility may hamper its adoption.

Actual anterior–posterior corneal radius ratio in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction according to axial length

We retrospectively evaluate the actual anterior–posterior (AP) corneal radius ratio in eyes with previous laser correction for myopia (M-LVC) according to axial length (AL) using biometry data exported from swept-source optical coherence tomography between January 2018 and October 2021 in a tertiary hospital (1018 eyes with a history of M-LVC and 19,841 control eyes). The AP ratio was significantly higher in the LVC group than in the control group. Further, it was significantly positively correlated with AL in the LVC group. We also investigated the impact of the AP ratio, AL and keratometry (K) on the absolute prediction error (APE) in 39 eyes that underwent cataract surgery after M-LVC. In linear regression analyses, there were significant correlations between APE and AL/TK, while APE and AP ratio had no correlation. The APE was significantly lower in the Barrett True-K with total keratometry (Barrett True-TK) than in the Haigis-L formula on eyes with AL above 26 mm and K between 38 and 40 D. In conclusion, in eyes with previous M-LVC, AP ratio increases with AL. The Barrett True-K or Barrett True-TK formulas are recommended rather than Haigis-L formula in M-LVC eyes with AL above 26 mm and K between 38 and 40D.

Accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens power after small-incision lenticule extraction.

The study aimed to assess the accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). For the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye, the IOL power targeting the pre-SMILE eyes' lowest myopic refractive error was used. The FY-L formula, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical Formula (EVO-L), the Barrett True-K no history, and the Shammas-L, respectively, were used to calculate the predicted refractive error of target IOL power. A comparison was made between the change in spherical equivalent induced by SMILE (SMILE-Dif) and the variance between IOL-Dif (IOL-Induced Refractive Error) before and after SMILE. The prediction error (PE) was defined as SMILE-Dif minus IOL-Dif. The proportion of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D, the numerical and absolute prediction errors (PEs and AEs), and the median absolute error (MedAE) were compared. In total, 80 eyes from 42 patients who underwent SMILE were included in the study. The FY-L formula generated the sample's lowest mean PE (0.06 ± 0.76 D), MAE (0.58 ± 0.50 D), and MedAE (0.47 D), respectively. The PEs in ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D comprised 28.8%, 46.3%, 70.0%, and 87.5%, respectively, for the FY-L formula. Compared to other formulas, the FY-L formula produced the highest value with PEs for the percentage of eyes in ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D. This study demonstrates that the FY-L formula provides satisfactory outcomes in estimating the IOL power in the eyes after SMILE.

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy.

To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction of the formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK) for myopia. This retrospective study included 25 eyes of 18 patients whose status was post-RK for treatment of myopia, which had undergone cataract extraction with IOL implantation. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between implanted IOL power and predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. The formulas compared were Humphrey Atlas method, IOLMaster/Lenstar method, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS Average power, and ASCRS Maximum power on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. Median absolute errors were the least for Barrett True-K and ASCRS Maximum power, that is, 0.56 (0.25, 1.04) and 0.56 (0.25, 1.06) D, respectively, and that of Atlas method was 1.60 (0.85, 2.28) D. Median arithmetic errors were positive for Atlas, Barrett True-K, ASCRS Average (0.86 [-0.17, 1.61], 0.14 [-0.22 to 0.54], and 0.23 [-0.054, 0.76] D, respectively) and negative for IOLMaster/Lenstar method and ASCRS Maximum power (-0.02 [-0.46 to 0.38] and - 0.48 [-1.06 to - 0.22] D, respectively). Multiple comparison analysis of Friedman's test revealed that Atlas formula was significantly different from IOLMaster/Lenstar, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS Maximum power; ASCRS Maximum power was significantly different from all others (P < 0.00001). In post-RK eyes, Barrett True-K no-history formula and ASCRS Maximum power given by the ASCRS calculator were more accurate than other available formulas, with ASCRS Maximum leading to more myopic outcomes when compared to others.

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry.

To compare the accuracy of multiple traditional and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-radial keratotomy (RK) patients undergoing cataract surgery. This retrospective case series included 50 eyes with prior RK who underwent routine phacoemulsification surgery with single-piece acrylic IOL implantation (A constant = 118.8). Outcomes of multiple formulas were calculated. Included formulas were SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett True-K, Haigis and Barrett True-K (target refraction of 0.50 D), Barrett Universal II, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Shammas no history, DK SRK/T, DK SRK/T (target refraction of 0.50 D), Double K (DK) Holladay 1, and DK Holladay 1 (target refraction of 0.50 D). Averages of multiple combinations of best-performing single formulas were calculated. Primary outcome is mean absolute error (MAE). Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction) and DK SRK/T showed the lowest mean and median absolute errors (MedAE) followed by Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K (with -0.50 D target refraction). Combinations of 3, 4, or 5 of best performing single formulas yielded good results with >60% of cases within +0.50 D of intended refraction and MAE around 0.50 D. The best performing formulas with flatter K readings were PEARL-DGS and Haigis (with additional -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.72 + 0.71 D and 0.70 + 0.70 D, respectively, followed by Barrett True-K (with intended -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.75 + 0.63 D. Using an average of three or more Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction), the Barrett True-K, DK Holladay 1, and DK SRK/T formulas showed better outcomes than using a single formula for IOLMaster 700 standard K readings. The PEARL-DGS formula showed better accuracy in eyes with flatter K readings (<38 D).

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation formulas with and without Total Keratometry and Ray tracing in patients with previous myopic SMILE.

This study evaluated the prediction error (PE) variance and absolute median PE of different IOL calculation formulae including last generation formulae such as Barrett True-K with K, Okulix and Total Keratometry (TK) based calculations with Haigis and Barrett True-K in a simulation model in post-SMILE eyes. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Marburg, Germany. Design: Prospective study. Preoperative measurements included IOL power calculation before and after SMILE surgery. The target refraction was set to be the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes. The IOL power targeting at the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes was selected for the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye. The difference between the predicted refraction of pre- and post-SMILE eyes with the same IOL power was defined as IOL-Difference (IOL-Diff). The refractive change induced by SMILE was defined as the difference between preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction (SMILE-Diff). 98 eyes from 49 patients underwent bilateral myopic SMILE. The PE variance of Okulix was not significantly different compared to Barrett True-K with TK (P=0.471). The standard deviation (SD) of the mean PEs were ±0.413 D (Haigis-TK), ±0.453 D (Okulix), ±0.471 D (Barrett True-K with TK), ±0.556 D (Haigis-L) and ±0.576 D (Barrett True-K with K). The mean absolute PE were 0.340 D, 0.353 D, 0.404 D, 0.511 D and 0.715 D for Haigis-TK, Okulix, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K and Haigis-L respectively. The highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D was achieved by Okulix followed by Haigis TK, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K and Haigis-L. Our results suggest that Haigis in combination with TK, Okulix and Barrett True-K with and without TK offer good options for accurate IOL power calculation after SMILE. Haigis-L showed a tendency for myopic shift in eyes after previous SMILE.