Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Research Articles

A Comprehensive Evaluation of 16 Old and New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in Pediatric Eyes.

To compare the accuracy of 16 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in pediatric cataract eyes. The data records of pediatric patients who had been implanted with three IOL models (SA60AT, MA60AC, and enVista-MX60) between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed. The accuracy of 16 IOL power calculation methods was evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 3.0, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, LSF AI, Naeser 2, Pearl-DGS, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The non-optimized (ULIB/IOLcon) and optimized constants were used for IOL power calculation. The mean prediction error (PE), Performance Index (FPI), and all descriptive statistics were calculated. Ninety-seven eyes of 97 pediatric patients aged 13.2 (IQR 11.2-17.1) were included. No statistically significant difference (HS-test) was observed (p > 0.818) except for the Hoffer Q, and Naeser 2 (P = 0.014). With optimized lens constants, the best FPI indices were obtained by Hoffer Q (0.256) and VRF-G (0.251) formulas, followed by Hill-RBF 3.0 and BUII, with an index of 0.248. The highest FPI indices with non-optimized constants showed SRK/T and T2 formulas (0.246 and 0.245, respectively), followed by VRF-G and Holladay 1, with an index of 0.244. The best median absolute error values (MedAE) were achieved by Hoffer Q (0.50 D), VRF-G (0.53 D), and Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.54 D), all P ≥ 0.074. Our results place the Hoffer Q, VRF-G, Hill-RBF 3.0, and BUII formulas as more accurate predictors of postoperative refraction in pediatric cataract surgery.

Double-step calculation of the intraocular lens power in lens opacities excluding the measurement of axial eye length by optical biometry. A clinical case

The main source of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation errors in phacoemulsification (PE) is axial length (AL) measurement inaccuracy in cases if optical biometry cannot be used.bto describe an original double-step method of IOL power calculation in lens opacities which exclude AL measurement with optical biometry.Material and methods. Patient S. (male, 71) with a bilateral immature cataract underwent right eye phacoemulsification (PE) with no IOL implantation. After that, AL was measured in the aphakic state with transparent optical media and used in combination with preoperative anterior segment biometry data to calculate the IOL power. In the second stage, a selected lens with an extended focus range was implanted.Results. The patient was examined and discharged on the second day after surgery with visual acuity OD 0.3 sph +0.25 cyl -0.75 ax150 = 0.5 and signs of moderate postoperative keratopathy. After 2 weeks, uncorrected visual acuity was as high as 0.9 and could not be further corrected by spectacle lenses. The patient was admitted for surgical treatment of the left eye cataract and also operated in two stages. The AL measured by the optical method in the aphakic state, was 0.31 mm less than that measured before the operation. Six months after PE with IOL implantation, distance visual acuity in both eyes was 1.2, the patient could use binocular vision for reading and PC work with no difficulty.Conclusion. The double-step approach to IOL power calculation is justified in cases of strong decrease of crystalline lens transparency, especially in complicated cases, for example, in high myopia or “premium” lens implantation, in which patients are especially sensitive to correct target refraction, even though this approach requires a delayed IOL implantation, which should take place after a precise calculation of AL taken in the aphakic state.

Comparison of spherical equivalent determined by Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff-II (SRK-II) formula with target post-operative final refraction in patients undergoing cataract surgery

The most challenging subject in patient satisfaction after cataract surgery depends upon post-operative refractive outcomes. Accurately predicting post-operative refraction is necessary during the calculation of Intraocular lens (IOL) power. The Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff (SRK) II formula is one of the few formulae being used for the calculation of IOL power. Our study is to compare the accuracy of the SRK-II formula with targeted final refraction of patients undergoing phacoemulsification. This study was performed on 102 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification. IOL power was calculated using the SRK-II formula. One and a half months after surgery, refraction was performed. Differences between actual post-operative refraction and predicted spherical equivalent was calculated and termed absolute refractive error. Paired t-test was used for comparing actual post-operative refraction and predicted spherical equivalent.The mean absolute error (MAE) of the SRK-II formula was 0.44 D (diopters) overall. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the predicted spherical equivalent was 81%. Patients having post-operative refractive error within ±1.0 D for short, average, and long axial length were 88% (P value 0.21), 92% (P value 0.0009), and 91% (P value 0.18) respectively.We found that the SRK-II formula was accurate and reliable for predicting the post-operative refractive error in eyes with normal axial lengths as the post-operative refraction is near emmetropia and is a good method for IOL power calculation with normal axial lengths.

A Bayesian network meta-analysis on comparisons of intraocular lens power calculation methods for paediatric cataract eyes.

The study aimed to compare and rank the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in paediatric eyes in a systematic way. A literature search was conducted in Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE by December 2021. Combined withtraditional and network meta-analysis, we analysed the percentages of paediatric eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 dioptres (D) and ±1.00 D as the outcome measurements among different formulas. Subgroup analyses stratified by age were also undertaken. Thirteen studies with 1781 eyes comparing 8 calculation formulas were included. For the traditional meta-analysis results, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff theoretical (SRK/T) (risk ratios (RR), 1.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.30) performed significantly better than the SRKII formula for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.50 D. In addition, SRK/T (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18) and Holladay 1(RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) both performed significantly better than the SRKII formula for the percentage of eyes with PE within ±1.00 D. Considering the ranking based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) by Bayesian method, the top four formulas were Barrett Universal II (UII), Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T on the percentage of PE within ±0.50 D, whereas the top four formulas were Barrett UII, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas on the percentage of PE within ±1.00D. Concerning both outcome measurements of rank probabilities, the top three Barrett UII, SRK/T, and Holladay 1 formulas were considered to provide more accuracy for IOL power calculation in paediatric cataract eyes, and Barrett UII tends to perform better in older children.

Accuracy of 24 IOL Power Calculation Methods.

To scrutinize the accuracy of 24 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in unoperated eyes. In a series of consecutive patients undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of the Tecnis 1 ZCB00 IOL (Johnson & Johnson Vision), the following formulas were evaluated: Barrett Universal II, Castrop, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Holladay 2 (AL Adjusted), K6 (Cooke), Kane, Karmona, LSF AI, Naeser 2, OKULIX, Olsen (OLCR), Olsen (standalone), Panacea, PEARL-DGS, RBF 3.0, SRK/T, T2, VRF, and VRF-G. The IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) was used for biometric measurements. With optimized lens constants, the mean prediction error (PE) and its standard deviation (SD), the median absolute error (MedAE), the mean absolute error (MAE), and the percentage of eyes with prediction erros within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, ±1.00, and ±2.00 D were analyzed. Three hundred eyes of 300 patients were enrolled. The heteroscedastic method revealed statistically significant differences (P < .05) among formulas. Newly developed methods such as the VRF-G (standard deviation [SD] ±0.387 D), Kane (SD ±0.395 D), Hoffer QST (SD ±0.404 D), and Barrett Universal II (SD ±0.405) were more accurate than older formulas (P < .05). These formulas also yielded the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (84.33%, 82.33%, 83.33%, and 81.33%, respectively). Newer formulas (Barrett Universal II, Hoffer QST, K6, Kane, Karmona, RBF 3.0, PEARL-DGS, and VRF-G) were the most accurate predictors of postoperative refractions. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(4):249-256.].

Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes with Prior Laser Vision Correction (LVC) - A Review.

An intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes that have undergone laser vision correction (LVC) poses a significant clinical issue in regards to both patient expectation and accuracy. This review aims to describe the pitfalls of IOL power calculation after LVC and give an overview of the current methods of IOL power calculation after LVC. Problems after LVC derive from the measurement of anterior corneal radii, central corneal thickness, asphericity, and the predicted effective lens position. A central issue is that most conventional 3rd generation formulas estimate lens position amongst other parameters on keratometry, which is altered in post-LVC eyes. An IOL power calculation results in eyes with prior LVC that are notably impaired in eyes without prior surgery. Effective corneal power including anterior corneal curvature, posterior corneal curvature, CCT (central corneal thickness), and asphericity is essential. Total keratometry in combination with the Barrett True-K, EVO (emmetropia verifiying optical formula), or Haigis formula is relatively uncomplicated and seems to provide good results, as does the Barrett True-K formula with anterior K values. The ASCRS ( American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery) calculator combines results of various formulae and averages results, which allows a direct comparison between the different methods. Tomography-based raytracing and the Kane and the Castrop formulae need to be evaluated by future studies.

Congenital cataract surgery: long-term refractive outcomes of a new intraocular lens power correction formula.

The final refraction after intraocular lens (IOL) implantation remains a challenge in the management of paediatric cataracts. No consensual guidelines exist for the choice of IOL power. The aim of this study was to validate a method of IOL power calculation by evaluating the final refractive error in all patients with IOL implantation operated at our institution. We retrospectively studied all children under 7 years of age who underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2015. Intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated as follows: After B-scan determination of the emmetropic IOL power, a reduction of 40%, 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, 15%, 10% and 5% was applied to children 0-3, 3-6, 6-12, 12-18, 18-24, 24-30, 30-36, 36-48 months, respectively. The following data were collected: follow-up, age at surgery, uni- or bilaterality, implanted IOL power and final refraction. During this period, 81 children (125 eyes) met the inclusion criteria with a median follow-up of 60 months (36-97). The median age at surgery was 6.61 months (0.76-48). We included 52 children with bilateral cataract (96 eyes) and 29 children with unilateral cataract (29 eyes). The mean implanted IOL power was 23.3 ± 4.6 diopters (D). The mean spherical equivalent at last follow-up was 0.07 ± 3.5 D. Our undercorrection formula for IOL implantation after congenital cataract surgery leads to long-term refractive results globally close to emmetropia.

Myopic outcome after intraocular lens implantation in a patient who previously had small-incision lenticule extraction

Introduction: This is a report of cataract surgery in a post–small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) patient with low myopia. Patient and clinical findings: A 49-year-old man underwent bilateral SMILE 18 months previously, and the visual acuity of both eyes recovered to 20/20. The patient noticed a gradual reduction in visual acuity in his left eye and blurring for 3 months. The corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20/67 in his left eye. Diagnosis, intervention, and outcomes: The slitlamp examination revealed an anterior subcapsular cataract. The intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated by using a multiformula averaging method. A standard femtosecond laser–assisted phacoemulsification cataract surgery was performed and a trifocal IOL implanted. 2 months after IOL implantation, the uncorrected distance visual acuity of the left eye was 20/33, the autorefraction values were −1.37 −0.25 × 146, and the CDVA was 20/20. Conclusions: This case report showed that current postrefractive IOL power calculation formulas or methods may lead to myopic outcomes in patients who previously received SMILE. A standard IOL calculation may be more suitable for such patients. Additional case studies are needed to accurately calculate IOL power after SMILE similar to laser in situ keratomileusis.

Alternative method of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length

To develop an alternative method of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and axial length (AL) of less than 22.0 mm using modern formulas Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF. The study enrolled 41 patients (41 eyes) who underwent phacoemulsification (PE). Ultrasound biometry (Tomey Biometer Al-100) and keratometry (Topcon-8800) were used for IOL power calculation by SRK/T and Haigis formulas. To calculate IOL power by Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF formulas, 0.2 mm were added to AL measured with ultrasonography (retinal thickness). One month after PE, spherical equivalent of refraction was compared with target refraction (calculated by the formulas listed above), and based on that a conclusion was made on the accuracy of calculations. Haigis formula was found to be the least accurate (IOL calculation error -0.39±0.79 D). The calculation error in SRK/T (0.04±0.79 D), Barrett Universal II (0.02±0.79 D) and Hill RBF (-0.05±0.73 D) formulas was much lower. However, among them Hill RBF had the lowest spread of the mean absolute IOL calculation error. Pairwise comparison revealed significant difference of mean IOL calculation error by Haigis formula versus the others. There was no significant difference in the following pairs: SRK/T - Barrett Universal II (p=0.855), and SRK/T - Hill RBF (p=0.167), but there was a significant difference (p=0.043) in the Barrett Universal II - Hill RBF pairdue to the tendency for slight hypermetropic calculation error in the former and the inherent slight myopic shift in the latter.. The proposed alternative method of IOL power calculation in eyes with mature cataract and short AL using modern formulas (Barrett Universal II and Hill RBF) shows higher accuracy compared to the formulas embedded in ultrasound biometer (SRK/T and Haigis), and can be recommended for use in everyday practice.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after corneal refractive surgery (CRS) becomes an expanding challenge for ophthalmologists as more and more cataract surgeries after CRS are required. These patients typically also have high expectations as to visual performance. Conventional IOL power calculation schemes frequently provide inaccurate results in these cases. This review aims to summarize and recommend currently available IOL power calculation methods for eyes with the most common CRS methods: radial keratotomy (RK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). To this end, biometry measuring methods and IOL formulas will be explained and combinations of both are proposed. In synopsis, it is evident that the latest generation of vergence formulas exhibit favorable IOL power prediction accuracy in post-CRS eyes, even though the predictive precision of methods in eyes without CRS is not attained. Ray tracing computation, intraoperative aberrometry, and machine learning–based formulas hold potential to further improve refractive outcomes in post-CRS eyes.

Corneal power values for use with keratoprostheses and intraocular lenses

AbstractPurposeTo specify a keratoprosthesis (KPro) power value for use with an intraocular lens (IOL).MethodsRaytracing software was used to determine the imaging properties of both the natural cornea and conceptual KPro designs, and IOL power calculation methods were reviewed. Traditional calculations use ‘thick lens’ models for the overall eye, while also using ‘thin lens’ approximations for the cornea and IOL. The power of the natural cornea acts approximately at the apex, although this is unlikely to be the case for a KPro. The IOL location is determined using an empirical adjustment that is calculated from clinical results for natural eyes.ResultsThe use of a KPro has a similar optical effect to corneal refractive surgery, where the cornea no longer matches the original eye. A modification of the ‘double‐K’ calculation method can be used by specifying the KPro effective power at the original corneal apex, but still estimating the postoperative IOL location using the original corneal power. The KPro power is measured by assembling the KPro with fluid and a window to simulate the way it is used, recording the best focus power at room temperature with a 3 mm diameter aperture, rescaling to the in situ power at 35°C using refractive index changes, and then rescaling again to the power expected relative to the original corneal apex. When expressed as a K value, a keratometer refractive index of 1.332 is proposed. If necessary, clinical results may be used later to make empirical adjustments to the calculation method.ConclusionsA KPro power can be specified relative to the expected location of the original corneal apex using a keratometer index of 1.332. A double‐K calculation can then be used to determine the correct KPro and IOL power values for a pseudophakic eye.

Comparison of Axis Determination With Different Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods.

To compare the axis position of the measured total corneal astigmatism (TCA) with the axis of the anterior keratometry and the calculated axis position of different toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators. A total of 163 astigmatic eyes of 163 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The axis of the actual TCA, measured with anterior segment optical coherence tomography, was compared to the anterior keratometric value (Group I) and three different methods of TCA calculation for toric IOL power determination: Abulafia-Koch regression formula (Group II), Barrett Toric Calculator V2.0 (Group III), and Barrett Toric Calculator V2.0 including measured posterior keratometric value (Group IV). Eyes were assigned to three subgroups: with-the-rule, against-the-rule, and oblique astigmatism. The mean deviation calculated from measured TCA was +0.56° (Group I), -0.32° (Group II), -0.37° (Group III), and -1.00° (Group IV). For with-the-rule astigmatism, the TCA axis agreed most with Group I (6.5% outliers > 5° deviation). For against-the-rule astigmatism, Group IV and Group II were closest to the measured TCA axis (1.5% and 3% outliers with > 5° deviation). The means of the calculated axis were similar to the measured TCA, but the proportion of outliers with an axis deviation of greater than 5° showed remarkable differences. Isolated anterior keratometric value measurements showed the fewest outliers in with-the-rule astigmatism. In against-the-rule astigmatism, Abulafia-Koch calculation should be used for axis determination. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(9):642-647.].

Comparisons of intraocular lens power calculation methods for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery: Bayesian network meta-analysis.

To compare the accuracy of the methods for calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery. EENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. Network meta-analysis. A literature search of MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2019 was conducted for studies that evaluated methods of calculating IOL power in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery. Outcomes measurements were the percentages of prediction error within ±0.50 diopters (D) and ±1.00 D of the target refraction (% ±0.50 D and % ±1.00 D). Traditional and network meta-analysis were conducted. Nineteen prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1217 eyes and 13 calculation methods, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that compared with the widely used Haigis-L method, the Barrett True-K formula, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and Masket methods showed significantly higher % ±0.50 D, whereas no difference was found in the % ±1.00 D. A network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the Haigis-L method, the OCT, Barrett True-K formula, and optiwave refractive analysis (ORA) methods performed better on the % ±0.50 D, whereas the Barrett True-K formula and ORA methods performed better on the % ±1.00 D. Based on the performances of both outcomes, the Barrett True-K formula, OCT, and ORA methods showed highest probability to rank the top 3 among the 13 methods. The Barrett True-K formula, OCT, and ORA methods seemed to offer greater accuracy than others in calculating the IOL power for postrefractive surgery eyes.

Comparison of accuracy of different intraocular lens power calculation methods using artificial intelligence.

To assess the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on three methods using artificial intelligence (AI) and one formula using no AI. During cataract surgery on 114 eyes, one type of IOL was implanted, calculated with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method. The theoretical postoperative refractions were calculated using the Kane and the Pearl-DGS methods and a vergence based formula (Barrett Universal II, BUII). The differences between the manifest and objective postoperative refractions and the predicted refractions were calculated. The percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D prediction error (PE), the mean, and the median absolute errors (MAE and MedAE) were also determined. The mean age of the patients was 69.48 years; the axial length was between 21.19 and 25.39 mm. The number of eyes within ±0.5/±1.0 D PE was 96/108 (84.21%/94.73%) using the Hill-RBF 2.0 method, 92/107 (80.70%/93.85%) with the Kane method, 91/107 (79.82%/93.85%) with the Pearl-DGS method, and 91/106 (79.82%/92.98%) with the BUII formula, using subjective refraction. With objective refractometric data, PEs were within ±0.5 D in 88 (77.19%), 83 (72.80%), 82 (71.92%), and 80 (70.17%) cases (Hill-RBF, Kane, Pearl-DGS, BUII, respectively). MAE and MedAE were also best with the Hill-RBF 2.0 method (0.3 D; 0.18 D). Better accuracy of PE might be obtained by the Hill-RBF 2.0 method compared with BUII. The Kane and Pearl-DGS methods showed similar accuracy when compared with BUII.

Influence of posterior corneal astigmatism on the outcomes of toric intraocular lens implantation in eyes with oblique astigmatism.

To assess whether the outcomes of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in eyes with oblique astigmatism can be improved by direct measurements of posterior corneal astigmatism using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) instead of by using anterior corneal measurements alone. Retrospective case series. Two toric IOL power calculation methods were compared: anterior corneal astigmatism was used in the keratometry group, whilst total corneal astigmatism determined by ray tracing through the measured anterior and posterior corneal surfaces was used in the AS-OCT group. In a total of 279 eyes of 232 patients, subgroup analysis was conducted for with-the-rule (WTR) (85 eyes in the keratometry group and 34 eyes in the AS-OCT group), against-the-rule (ATR) (73/29 eyes), and oblique (26/32 eyes) astigmatism. In the WTR and ATR astigmatism groups, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was significantly better in the AS-OCT group than in the keratometry group (P = 0.012 and P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney test), and the residual astigmatism was significantly smaller in the AS-OCT group than in the keratometry group (P = 0.037 and P < 0.001). In eyes with oblique astigmatism, the UDVA (P = 0.299) and residual astigmatism (P = 0.373) of the keratometry and AS-OCT groups did not differ. Incorporation of posterior corneal astigmatism measured with AS-OCT can significantly improve the outcomes of toric IOL implantation in eyes with WTR and ATR astigmatism, but not in eyes with oblique astigmatism.

Method for IOL Power Calculation in the Second Eye of Patients With Previous Keratorefractive Surgery.

To describe and evaluate a method for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in the second operative eye of patients with a history of keratorefractive surgery. All eyes had undergone cataract surgery by a single surgeon from 2015 to 2018. Postoperative outcomes on the first eye (eg, IOL power implanted and postoperative refractive error) were used to back calculate a "Real K" for the first eye. The difference (delta) between the second and first eye topographic simulated keratometry values was then added to the first eye Real K to calculate the second eye Real K. This Real K value was inputted into the Holladay IOL Consultant software as an "alternate K" to derive an accurate IOL power for the second eye. Mean absolute error, mean error, and percentage of eyes on target using the Delta K method were compared with results obtained with intraoperative abserrometry and the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K No History formulas. The mean error for the Delta K method was significantly better than the Haigis-L (P = .00001) and Barrett True-K No History (P = .027) formulas, and on par with intra-operative aberrometry (P = .25). The mean absolute error of the Delta K method was significantly better than the Haigis-L formula (P = .03). The Delta K mean absolute error was on par with intraoperative aberrometry (P = .81) and the Barrett True-K No History formula (P = .56). The Delta K mean absolute error is comparable to the Barrett True-K No History formula. The mean error is lower than that calculated with the Barrett True-K No History formula and comparable to intraoperative aberrometry. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(12):826-831.].

Assessing the validity of corneal power estimation using conventional keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with Fuch\u2019s dystrophy undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty

PurposeThe present retrospective study was designed to test the hypothesis that the postoperative posterior to preoperative anterior corneal curvature radii (PPPA) ratio in eyes with Fuch’s dystrophy undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is significantly different to the posterior to anterior corneal curvature radii (PA) ratio in virgin eyes and therefore renders conventional keratometry (K) and the corneal power derived by it invalid for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.MethodsMeasurement of corneal parameters was performed using Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam HR, Oculus, Germany). In 125 eyes with Fuch’s dystrophy undergoing DMEK, a fictitious keratometer index was calculated based on the PPPA ratio. The preoperative and postoperative keratometer indices and PA ratios were also determined. Results were compared to those obtained in a control group consisting of 125 eyes without corneal pathologies. Calculated mean ratios and keratometer indices were then used to convert the anterior corneal radius in each eye before DMEK to postoperative posterior and total corneal power. To assess the most appropriate ratio and keratometer index, predicted and measured powers were compared using Bland-Altman plots.ResultsThe PPPA ratio determined in eyes with Fuch’s dystrophy undergoing DMEK was significantly different (P < 0.001) to the PA ratio in eyes without corneal pathologies. Using the mean PA ratio (0.822) and keratometer index (1.3283), calculated with the control group data to convert the anterior corneal radius before DMEK to power, leads to a significant (P < 0.001) underestimation of postoperative posterior negative corneal power (mean difference (∆ = − 0.14D ± 0.30) and overestimation of total corneal power (∆ = − 0.45D ± 1.08). The lowest prediction errors were found using the geometric mean PPPA ratio (0.806) and corresponding keratometer index (1.3273) to predict the postoperative posterior (∆ = − 0.01 ± 0.30) and total corneal powers (∆ = − 0.32D ± 1.08).ConclusionsCorneal power estimation using conventional K for IOL power calculation is invalid in eyes with Fuch’s dystrophy undergoing DMEK. To avoid an overestimation of corneal power and minimize the risk of a postoperative hyperopic shift, conventional K for IOL power calculation should be adjusted in eyes with Fuch’s dystrophy undergoing cataract surgery combined with DMEK. The fictitious PPPA ratio and keratometer index may guide further IOL power calculation methods to achieve this.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods when targeting low myopia in monovision.

To investigate the accuracy of IOL power calculation methods for refractive targets of myopia compared with emmetropia. Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. Retrospective analysis. Patients undergoing bilateral, sequential cataract surgery with a plan of modest monovision were analyzed. Target refraction was plano (distance eye) and -1.25 diopters (D) (near eye). Prediction error was determined by comparing the actual postoperative refraction with the predicted postoperative refraction, calculated by the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-RBF version 2.0 (Hill-RBF 2.0), Haigis, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas. The dataset was divided into distance and near eye subgroups. Mean and median absolute error and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D of refractive target were compared. The study included 88 consecutive patients. There was a consistent trend for lower refractive accuracy in the near eyes. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 were the most accurate overall and least affected by this phenomenon, with 1 (1.1%) and 4 (4.6%) fewer eyes, respectively, in the near subgroup achieving ±0.50 D of target. Haigis and SRK/T were most affected, with 14 (15.9%) and 11 (12.5%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target (P < .05). Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q occupied the middle ground, with 6 (6.8%) and 9 (10.2%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target. IOL-power calculation formulas appear to be less accurate when targeting myopia compared with emmetropia. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 represented good options when planning pseudophakic monovision as they were least affected by this phenomenon and can be used for both distance and near eyes.

Accuracy of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on artificial intelligence.

The purpose of this study is to develop and assess the accuracy of a new intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation method based on machine learning techniques. The following data were retrieved for 260 eyes of 260 patients undergoing cataract surgery: preoperative simulated keratometry, mean keratometry of posterior surface, axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and white-to-white diameter; model and power of implanted IOL; and subjective refraction at 3 months post surgery. These data were used to train different machine learning models (k-Nearest Neighbor, Artificial Neural Networks, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, etc). Implanted lens characteristics and biometric data were used as input to predict IOL power and refractive outcomes. For external validation, a dataset of 52 eyes was used. The accuracy of the trained models was compared with that of the power formulas Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, and Hill-RBF v2.0. The SD of the prediction error in order of lowest to highest was the new method (designated Karmona) (0.30), Haigis (0.36), Holladay 2 (0.38), Barrett Universal II (0.38), and Hill-RBF v2.0 (0.40). Using the Karmona method, 90.38% and 100% of eyes were within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D respectively. The method proposed emerged as the most accurate to predict IOL power.

Development of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on lens position estimated with optical coherence tomography

A new method is developed and validated for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on paraxial ray tracing of the postoperative IOL positions, which are obtained with the use of anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Of the 474 eyes studied, 137 and 337 were grouped into training and validation sets, respectively. The positions of the implanted IOLs of the training datasets were characterized with multiple linear regression analyses one month after the operations. A new regression formula was developed to predict the postoperative anterior chamber depth with the use of the stepwise analysis results. In the validation dataset, postoperative refractive values were calculated according to the paraxial ray tracing of the cornea and lens based on the assumption of finite structural thicknesses with separate surface curvatures. The predicted refraction error was calculated as the difference of the expected postoperative refraction from the spherical-equivalent objective refraction values. The percentage error (within ±0.50 diopters) of the new formula was 84.3%. This was not significantly correlated to the axial length or keratometry. The developed formula yielded excellent postoperative refraction predictions and could be applicable to eyes with abnormal proportions, such as steep or flat corneal curvatures and short and long axial lengths.