Lens Power Calculation In Eyes Research Articles

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.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with a shallow anterior chamber depth and normal axial length.

We compared the accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in eyes with a shallow anterior chamber depth (ACD) and normal axial length (AXL) and control eyes. We retrospectively reviewed eyes with a shallow ACD (<2.5 mm from the corneal epithelium) with normal AXL (22.5≤AXL<24.0 mm) and controls (3.0≤ACD<3.5 mm and normal AXL). Prediction error (PE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were evaluated with SRK/T, Barrett Universal II (BUII), and Kane formulas after adjusting the mean PE to zero for all patients. Percentages of eyes achieving a PE within 0.25 to 1.00 D, and correlations between ACD, lens thickness (LT), and PE were analyzed. Thirty-five shallow ACD and 63 control eyes were included. PE in the shallow ACD group showed more hyperopic results with BUII and Kane but not with SRK/T compared to controls. Within the shallow ACD group, PE showed more hyperopic results in BUII and Kane compared to SRK/T. However, the standard deviation (SD) of PE among formulas was not different. In the shallow ACD group, SRK/T showed a higher percentage of PE within 0.25 D than BUII and Kane, but the percentages within 0.50 to 1.00 D were similar. PE was negatively correlated with ACD in BUII and Kane, and positively correlated with LT in all formulas. BUII and Kane may induce slight hyperopic shift in eyes with a shallow ACD and normal AXL. However, the performance of the three formulas was comparable in the shallow ACD group in terms of MedAE, the SD of PE, and the percentage of eyes achieving PE within 0.50 D.

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on "Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947".

We thank Cioni et al. for their suggestions and comments [...].

Comment on Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947.

With great interest, we read the article by Moshirfar et al. [...].

Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus Eyes Comparing Keratometry, Total Keratometry, and Newer Formulae

To compare the utility of keratometry vs total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae. Retrospective cohort study. This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing. KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE. KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used.

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm.

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang–Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

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.

Comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with an axial length greater than 29.0mm.

PurposeTo evaluate and compare the accuracy of six different formulas (Emmetropia Verifying Optical version 2.0, Kane, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for extremely long eyes.MethodsRetrospective case-series. Seventy-three eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 29.0 mm and underwent phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Rayner (Hove, UK) 920H IOL implantation from January 2018 to March 2020 were included. Prediction errors (PE) were calculated and compared between different formulas to evaluate the accuracy of formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE.ResultsThe Kane formula had mean prediction error close to zero (– 0.01 ± 0.51 D, P = 0.841), whereas the EVO 2.0, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen formulas produced hyperopic outcomes (all P < 0.001). The median absolute error [inter-quartile range] produced by the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas showed no significant difference (0.33 D [0.48], 0.30 D [0.44], 0.34 D [0.39], 0.29 D [0.37], respectively, pairwise comparison P > 0.05), but was significantly lower than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas (0.85 D [0.66], 0.80 D [0.54], respectively, pairwise comparison P < 0.001). The AL and the PE produced by the SRK/T formula were significantly positively correlated in extremely myopic eyes (β = 0.248, P < 0.001), whereas the trend was not demonstrated in other formulas.ConclusionsFor cataract patients with axial length greater than 29.0 mm, the accuracy of the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas is comparable and significantly better than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas.

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.

Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery: Challenges, approaches, and outcomes.

In eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery, difficulties in accurately determining corneal refractive power and in predicting the effective lens position create challenges in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. There are three categories of methods proposed based on the use of historical data acquired prior to the corneal refractive surgery. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery postrefractive IOL calculator incorporates many commonly used methods. Accuracy of refractive prediction errors within ± 0.5 D is achieved in 0% to 85% of eyes with previous myopic LASIK/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), 38.1% to 71.9% of eyes with prior hyperopic LASIK/PRK, and 29% to 87.5% of eyes with previous radial keratotomy. IOLs with negative spherical aberration (SA) may reduce the positive corneal SA induced by myopic correction, and IOLs with zero SA best match corneal SA in eyes with prior hyperopic correction. Toric, extended-depth-of-focus, and multifocal IOLs may provide excellent outcomes in selected cases that meet certain corneal topographic criteria. Further advances are needed to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome

To compare refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) and control eyes and to investigate the accuracy of 3 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in these eyes. In this prospective comparative study 42 eyes (PEX group) and 38 eyes (control group) of 80 patients were included. The follow-up was 3 months. The refractive prediction error (RPE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentages of eyes within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.5 D, ± 1.0 D and ± 2.0 D of prediction error were calculated. Three IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF) were evaluated. PEX produced statistically significantly higher mean absolute errors and lower percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D than control eyes in all investigated IOL calculation formulas. There were no statistically significant differences in the median absolute errors between the 3 formulas in either PEX or control eyes. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery are statistically significantly worse in PEX than in control eyes. All three IOL calculation formulas produced similar results in both PEX and control eyes.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04783909.

Comparison of the accuracy of six intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes of axial length exceeding 25.0 mm

To compare intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes longer than 25.0mm in terms of absolute error and the percentages of postoperative emmetropia and hyperopia. The data for myopic patients who underwent uneventful phacoemulsification between October 2015 and June 2019 were reviewed. Intraocular lens power was calculated using Holladay 1, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas. The power of the lens implanted was based on Holladay 2. Three months after phacoemulsification, the refraction was measured, and the mean absolute error was calculated. The percentage of patients with good uncorrected visual acuity and percentage of hyperopic patients for each formula was established. ROC curves with a cut-off point of axial length were drawn for each formula and the area under the curve was evaluated. Seventy patients (81 eyes) whose ocular axial length ranged between 25.01mm and 28.57mm were included. The Barrett Universal II formula achieved the lowest mean absolute error of 0.08±0.08D. Additionally, with the Barrett Universal II, the percentage of patients with good uncorrected visual acuity (81.5%) was the highest, and the percentage of hyperopic patients (4.9%) was the lowest. The Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1 formulas had the largest area under curve (0.764 and 0.718, respectively). 1.The Barrett Universal II formula is recommended for intraocular lens power calculation for eyes with axial length greater than 25.0mm. 2.Considering the ROC curve method, the Barrett Universal II and Holladay 1 formulas appear to be the most appropriate.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes with Previous Excimer Laser Surgery for Myopia: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

To review the literature to evaluate the outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Literature searches were conducted in the PubMed database in January 2020. Separate searches relevant to cataract surgery outcomes and corneal refractive surgery returned 1169 and 162 relevant citations, respectively, and the full text of 24 was reviewed. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for this assessment; all were assigned a level III rating of evidence by the panel methodologist. When automated keratometry was used with a theoretical formula designed for eyes without previous laser vision correction, the mean prediction error (MPE) was universally positive (hyperopic), the mean absolute errors (MAEs) and median absolute errors (MedAEs) were relatively high (0.72-1.9 diopters [D] and 0.65-1.73 D, respectively), and a low (8%-40%) proportion of eyes were within 0.5 D of target spherical equivalent (SE). Formulas developed specifically for this population requiring both prerefractive surgery keratometry and manifest refraction (i.e., clinical history, corneal bypass, and Feiz-Mannis) produced a proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of target SE between 26% and 44%. Formulas requiring only preoperative keratometry or no history at all had lower MAEs (0.42-0.94 D) and MedAEs (0.30-0.81 D) and higher (30%-68%) proportions within 0.5 D of target SE. Strategies that averaged several methods yielded the lowest reported MedAEs (0.31-0.35 D) and highest (66%-68%) proportions within 0.5 D of target SE. Even after using the best-known methods, refractive outcomes were less accurate in eyes that had previous excimer laser surgery for myopia compared with those that did not have it. Calculation methods requiring both prerefractive surgery keratometry and manifest refraction are no longer considered the gold standard. Refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes that had previous excimer laser surgery are less accurate than in eyes that did not. Patients should be advised of this refractive limitation when considering cataract surgery in the setting of previous corneal refractive surgery. Conclusions are limited by the small sample sizes and retrospective nature of nearly all existing literature in this domain.

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.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Previous Corneal Refractive Surgery: Review and Expert Opinion

Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations are less accurate in eyes that have undergone corneal refractive surgery. A wide range of methods have been proposed. We reviewed the methods and outcomes of IOL power calculations in eyes with previous LASIK, excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), or radial keratotomy (RK). The PubMed database was searched for articles that (1) discuss methods and outcomes of IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and (2) evaluate the outcomes of toric, multifocal, or extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in these eyes. We excluded review articles, case reports or case studies, and non-English reports. Seventy full-text articles were included in this review. Three categories of methods exist based on whether and how they use historical data acquired before the corneal refractive surgery. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) postrefractive IOL calculator incorporates many commonly used methods. In eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK, hyperopic LASIK or PRK, and RK, 0% to 85%, 38.1% to 71.9%, and 29% to 87.5% of eyes, respectively, showed refractive prediction errors within ±0.5 diopter (D); in eyes with toric IOL implantation that met certain inclusion criteria, 80%, 84%, and 69% of eyes, respectively, achieved postoperative astigmatism of 0.50 D or less. Intraocular lenses with negative spherical aberration (SA) will reduce the positive corneal spherical aberration induced in eyes by myopic LASIK or PRK or by RK. Intraocular lenses with 0 SA on average best match corneal SA in eyes with prior hyperopic LASIK or PRK. Studies have reported excellent outcomes of postrefractive eyes implanted with multifocal or EDOF IOLs; however, corneal topographic enrollment criteria were not specified. Despite availability of new measurement technologies and development of new IOL calculation formulas, further advances are needed to improve outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone corneal refractive surgery. Tools like the ASCRS postrefractive IOL calculator are useful for the clinician by incorporating a variety of formulas. Toric, EDOF, and multifocal IOLs may provideexcellent outcomes in selected cases that meet certain corneal topographic criteria.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with keratoconus

The purpose was to review and document the methods used to calculate the power of the intraocular lens (IOL) to be implanted in cataract surgery in the specific scenario of eyes with keratoconus. This review included all scientific articles published in English that focused on the parameters and formulas used to calculate the power of the IOL to be implanted in eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. There are few publications that show in detail how IOL power is calculated in these particular cases. If the keratometric value used was based on the standard refractive index (1.3375), it resulted in a postoperative refractive error with a tendency to hyperopia. The SRK/T formula yielded the best outcomes. The greater the severity of keratoconus the greater was the deviation of the postoperative refractive status from the target outcome.

Total keratometry in intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens (IOL) calculations in post-refractive cases remain a concern. Our study identifies improved options for surgeons. To evaluate and compare the prediction accuracy of IOL power calculation methods after previous laser refractive surgery using standard keratometry (SK), measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and total keratometry (TK). Retrospective consecutive cohort. A total of 50 consecutive patients (72 eyes) at a private institution who underwent cataract surgery with prior laser refractive procedures. Methods using SK included ASCRS mean, Barrett True-K no history, Haigis-L and Shammas IOL formulae. Barrett True-K using posterior values (True K TK), Haigis and Holladay 1 Double-K methods using TK were also assessed. Post-surgery refraction was undertaken at minimum 3 weeks following surgery. Arithmetic and absolute IOL refractive prediction errors, variances in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D of refractive prediction errors were compared. The Barrett True-K (TK) provided the lowest mean refractive prediction error (RPE) and variance for both prior myopes and hyperopes undergoing cataract surgery. The Barrett True-K (TK) exhibited the highest percentages of eyes within ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D of the RPE compared to other formulae for prior myopic patients. Accuracy of IOL power calculations in post-laser eyes can be improved by the addition of posterior corneal values as measured by the IOLMaster 700. The use of total keratometry may supplement outcomes when no prior refraction history is known.

Comparison of accuracy of haigis and SRK II formula for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length

Comparison of accuracy of haigis and SRK II formula for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length - IJCEO- Print ISSN No: - 2395-1443 Online ISSN No:- 2395-1451 Article DOI No:- 10.18231/j.ijceo.2019.090, Indian Journal of Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology-Indian J Clin Exp Ophthalmol

Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery

To compare the accuracy of total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) from a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. Retrospective case series. The differences between the TK and K and their association with K were assessed. For IOL power calculation, combinations of 1) K with Haigis, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K, and 2) TK with Haigis (Haigis-TK) were used. The mean absolute error (MAE) and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ± 0.50 diopters (D), ± 1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D were calculated. The study comprised 129 eyes. For Haigis, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Haigis-TK, respectively, the MAEs were 0.72 D, 0.61 D, 0.54 D, and 0.50 D in the myopic laser insitu keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) group, and 0.74 D, 0.68 D, 0.71 D, and 0.70 D in hyperopic LASIK/PRK group. For the radial keratotomy (RK) eyes, the MAEs were 0.66 D, 0.71 D, and 0.72 D for the Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Haigis-TK formulas, respectively. In the myopic LASIK/PRK group, the Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK produced significantly lower MAEs than did Haigis (P<.05). In the hyperopic LASIK/PRK and RK groups, there were no significant differences between the formulas in MAEs and percentages of eyes within the above prediction errors. The performance of the combination of Haigis and TK in refractive prediction was comparable with Haigis-L and Barrett True-K in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.