Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula

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

PURPOSE

To 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 with cataract extraction and IOL placement for concurrent Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and cataracts.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

90 eyes with FECD undergoing uncomplicated DMEK triple procedure at Wilmer Eye Institute.

METHODS

We analysed tomographic features of oedema, including loss of regular isopachs, displacement of the thinnest point of the cornea and the presence of posterior surface depression, and assessed the correlation with the prediction error.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We compared the mean error (±SD) for the Barrett Universal II (BU2), Hoffer QST, Haigis-L (HL) and Barrett True K (BTK) formulas and the percentage of eyes within 0.25, 0.5 and 1 diopter (D) of error.

RESULTS

All formulas resulted in a mean hyperopic error, with the HL having the lowest mean error of 0.24 D (±0.97 D) and BU2 having the highest ME of 0.94 D (±0.97 D). For each additional tomographic feature of corneal oedema in the BU2 and Hoffer QST formulas, the mean hyperopic error increased by 0.38 D. For the BTK and HL formulas, the mean error increased by 0.35 D (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The number of tomographic features of oedema can be useful in identifying eyes with higher errors in IOL calculation when performing the DMEK triple procedure for FECD.

Evaluation of Reliability of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Hyperopic Refractive Surgery

Background: We evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in the following formulas-Barrett True-K No History (BTKNH), EVO 2.0 Post-Hyperopic LASIK/PRK (EVO 2.0), Haigis-L, Pearl-DGS, and Shammas (SF)-with patients who have undergone cataract surgery at the Eye Unit of University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy, and had prior hyperopic laser refractive surgery. Methods: A monocentric, retrospective, comparative study, including the charts of patients who had undergone cataract surgery and previous hyperopic laser refractive surgery, was retrospectively reviewed. Patients with no other ocular or systemic disease which might interfere with visual acuity results and no operative complications or combined surgery were enrolled. The mean absolute prediction error (MAE) was calculated for each formula and compared. Subgroup analysis based on the axial length and mean keratometry was performed. Results: A total of 107 patients (107 eyes) were included. The MAE calculated with SF provided less accurate (p < 0.05) results when compared to both BTKNH and EVO 2.0 formulas. The MAE obtained using Haigis-L, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and BTKNH showed no significant differences. Conclusions: The analysis of the accuracy of the selected formulas shows no clear advantage in using one specific formula in standard cases, but in eyes where it is mandatory to reach the target refraction, SF should be avoided.

Refractive Prediction Accuracy Using Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Barrett True-K Formula Following Corneal Refractive Surgery

Purpose

To compare the refractive prediction accuracy of the Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) SYSTEM with the Barrett True-K (BTK) formula in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes that underwent cataract surgery after previous myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

Methods

This retrospective study evaluated patients aged ≥22 years with prior myopic PRK or LASIK who underwent unilateral or bilateral cataract removal and monofocal IOL implantation using the ORA SYSTEM at 177 sites in the United States. Two datasets were analyzed: All Eyes (ie, all eligible eyes) and First Surgery Eyes (ie, each patient's first implanted eye). All Eyes were subgrouped by axial length (AL) and further analyzed. The main outcomes included paired differences in absolute prediction errors (APEs) between the ORA SYSTEM and BTK and differences in the proportion of eyes with APEs of ≤0.25 diopter (D) and ≤0.50 D.

Results

1067 eyes were analyzed, including 897 First Surgery Eyes. Significantly higher proportions of All Eyes had APEs of ≤0.25 D (P = 0.0128) and ≤0.50 D (P < 0.0001) using the ORA SYSTEM than the BTK formula. Similarly, significantly higher proportions of First Surgery Eyes had APEs of ≤0.25 D (P = 0.0037) and ≤0.50 D (P = 0.0004) using the ORA SYSTEM than the BTK formula. In both datasets, mean (P < 0.0001) and median (P ≤0.0005) APEs were significantly lower with the ORA SYSTEM than with the BTK formula. AL did not affect the differences in prediction accuracy between these IOL power calculations.

Conclusion

In post-myopic PRK or LASIK eyes undergoing cataract surgery, the ORA SYSTEM provided significantly more accurate refractive predictability than the BTK formula, as determined by mean and median APE.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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.

SETTING

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.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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).

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Management with corneal techniques

Corneal techniques for enhancing near and intermediate vision to correct presbyopia include surgical and contact lens treatment modalities. Broad approaches used independently or in combination include correcting one eye for distant and the other for near or intermediate vision, (termed monovision or mini-monovision depending on the degree of anisometropia) and/or extending the eye's depth of focus [1]. This report reviews the evidence for the treatment profile, safety, and efficacy of the current range of corneal techniques for managing presbyopia. The visual needs and expectations of the patient, their ocular characteristics, and prior history of surgery are critical considerations for patient selection and preoperative evaluation. Contraindications to refractive surgery include unstable refraction, corneal abnormalities, inadequate corneal thickness for the proposed ablation depth, ocular and systemic co-morbidities, uncontrolled mental health issues and unrealistic patient expectations. Laser refractive options for monovision include surface/stromal ablation techniques and keratorefractive lenticule extraction. Alteration of spherical aberration and multifocal ablation profiles are the primary means for increasing ocular depth of focus, using surface and non-surface laser refractive techniques. Corneal inlays use either small aperture optics to increase depth of field or modify the anterior corneal curvature to induce corneal multifocality. In presbyopia correction by conductive keratoplasty, radiofrequency energy is applied to the mid-peripheral corneal stroma, leading to mid-peripheral corneal shrinkage and central corneal steepening. Hyperopic orthokeratology lens fitting can induce spherical aberration and correct some level of presbyopia. Postoperative management, and consideration of potential complications, varies according to technique applied and the time to restore corneal stability, but a minimum of 3 months of follow-up is recommended after corneal refractive procedures. Ongoing follow-up is important in orthokeratology and longer-term follow-up may be required in the event of late complications following corneal inlay surgery.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes After Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery and Radial Keratotomy: Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery or radial keratotomy.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published from January 1, 2012, to August 24, 2022. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error within the target refractive range (±0.50 diopter [D] or ±1.00 D).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis includes 24 studies of 1172 eyes after myopic refractive surgery that use 12 formulas for intraocular lens power calculation. (1) A network meta-analysis showed that Barrett true-K no history, the optical coherence tomography (OCT) formula, and the Masket formula had a significantly higher percent of eyes within ±0.50 D of the goal than the Haigis-L formula, whereas the Wang-Koch-Maloney formula showed the poor predictability. Using an error criterion of within ±1.00 D, the same 3 formulas performed slightly better than the Haigis-L formula. Based on performance using both prediction error criteria, the Barrett true-K no history formula, OCT formula, and Masket formula showed the highest probability of ranking as the top 3 among the 12 methods. (2) A direct meta-analysis with a subset of 4 studies and 5 formulas indicated that formulas did not differ in percent success for either the ±0.5 D or ±1.0 D error range in eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The OCT, Masket, and Barrett true-K no history formulas are more accurate for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, whereas no significant difference was found among the formulas for eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.

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 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula and to evaluate its outcomes on an independent test set.

DESIGN

Retrospective, single-center 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 of prediction in comparison to Haigis-L, Shammas, and American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) average formulas (P < .001). It exhibited similar postoperative refractive precision as the Barrett True-K No History formula (P = .61).

CONCLUSION

The post-LVC formula development process described in this article 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.

Precision in IOL Calculation for Cataract Patients with Prior History of Combined RK and LASIK Histories

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae for eyes that have undergone both radial keratotomy (RK) and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery to determine the efficacy of various IOL calculations for this unique patient group. Currently, research on this surgical topic is limited.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 11 eyes from 7 individuals with a history of RK and LASIK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision were analyzed. Preoperative biometric and corneal topographic measurements were performed. Subjective refraction was obtained postoperatively. Twelve different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were used: Barrett True K No History, Barrett True K (prior LASIK, Prior RK history), Barrett Universal 2, Camellin-Calossi-Camellin (3C), Double K-Modified Holladay, Haigis-L, Galilei, OCT, PEARL-DGS, Potvin-Hill, Panacea, and Shammas.

Results

The rankings of mean arithmetic error (MAE), from least to greatest, were as follows: 3C (0.088), Haigis-L-L (-0.508), Shammas (-0.516), OCT Average (-0.538), Barrett True K (-0.557), OCT RK (-0.563), Galilei (-0.570), IOL Master (-0.571), OCT LASIK (-0.583), Barrett True K No History (-0.597), Pearl-DGS (-0.606), Potvin-Hill SF (-0.770), Potvin-Hill TNP (-0.778), Panacea (-0.876), and Barrett Universal 2 (-1.522). The 3C formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D of target range (91%), while Haigis-L, Shammas, Galilei, Potvin Hill, Barrett True K, IOL Master, PEARL-DGS, and OCT formulae performed similarly, achieving 45% of eyes within ±0.75D of target refraction.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the accuracy of the lesser known 3C formula in IOL calculation, particularly for patients who have undergone both RK and LASIK. Well-known formulae, such as Haigis-L, Shammas, and Galilei, which are used by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), are viable options, although 3C formulae should be considered in this patient population. Furthermore, larger studies can confirm the best IOL power formulas for post-RK and LASIK cataract patients.

Camellin-Calossi Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Patients With Previous Myopic Laser Vision Correction

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of the Camellin-Calossi formula in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case series. Patients included had a history of uncomplicated myopic laser vision correction and cataract surgery. The primary outcome measures were cumulative distribution of absolute refractive prediction error, absolute refractive prediction error, and refractive prediction error. These parameters were estimated post-hoc using the Camellin-Calossi, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K with or without history, Masket, and Modified Masket formulas and their averages starting from biometric data, clinical records, postoperative refraction, and intraocular lens power implanted.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven eyes from 77 patients were included. The Camellin-Calossi, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History, Masket, Modified Masket, and Barrett True-K formulas showed a median absolute refractive error (interquartile range) of 0.25 (0.53), 0.51 (0.56), 0.44 (0.65), 0.45 (0.59), 0.40 (0.61), 0.60 (0.70), and 0.55 (0.76), respectively. The proportion of eyes with an absolute refractive error of ±0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00 diopters (D) for the Camellin-Calossi formula was 54.5%, 72.7%, 85.7%, 92.2%, 98.7%, and 100%, respectively. The cumulative distribution of the Camellin-Calossi formula showed the best qualitative performances when compared to the others. A statistically significant difference was identified with all of the others except the Haigis-L using a threshold of 0.25, with the Shammas, Modified Masket, and Barrett True-K at a threshold of 0.50 D and the Barrett True-K and Modified Masket at a threshold of 1.00 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The Camellin-Calossi formula is a valid option for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(3):e156-e163.].

Accuracy of the PEARL-DGS Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Post-Myopic Laser Refractive Corneal Surgery Eyes

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of the PEARL-DGS formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic laser refractive corneal surgery eyes.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

A total of 139 eyes of 139 patients (mean axial length: 27.4 ± 2.1 mm) who had prior myopic laser refractive corneal surgery and subsequent cataract surgery using Tecnis ZCB00 from March 2018 to February 2023 were included. Refractive outcomes of 5 formulas (Barrett True K, Haigis-L, Hoffer-QST, PEARL-DGS, and Shammas-PL) were evaluated. Prediction error was defined as the difference between the measured and predicted postoperative refractive spherical equivalent using the IOL power actually implanted. Mean prediction error (MPE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), and mean absolute prediction error were calculated.

RESULTS

Without constant optimization, the PEARL-DGS resulted in a MPE of +0.05 ± 0.65 diopters (D), whereas the other formulas resulted in myopic shifts. The MedAEs of the formulas were 0.39, 0.53, 0.65, 0.85, and 1.11 D for the PEARL-DGS, Hoffer-QST, Barrett True K, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L, respectively, in order of magnitude (P < .05). With constant optimization, there were no statistically significant differences in the MedAEs among the 5 formulas (P = .388).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to other IOL formulas, the PEARL-DGS resulted in better refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in post-myopic laser refractive corneal surgery eyes without constant optimization. We suggest that PEARL-DGS be considered as the first choice for IOL power calculation in these eyes when the clinicians do not have their optimized constants.

Theoretical Accuracy of the Raytracing Method for Intraocular Calculation of Lens Power in Myopic Eyes after Small Incision Extraction of the Lenticule

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the raytracing method for the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in myopic eyes after small incision extraction of the lenticule (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective study. All patients undergoing surgery for myopic SMILE between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with Scheimpflug tomography optical biometry were eligible for inclusion. Manifest refraction was performed before and 6 months after refractive surgery. One eye from each patient was included in the final analysis. A theoretical model was invited to predict the accuracy of multiple methods of lens power calculation by comparing the IOL-induced refractive error at the corneal plane (IOL-Dif) and the SMILE-induced change of spherical equivalent (SMILE-Dif) before and after SMILE surgery. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-Dif-IOL-Dif. IOL power calculations were performed using raytracing (Olsen Raytracing, Pentacam AXL, software version 1.22r05, Wetzlar, Germany) and other formulae with historical data (Barrett True-K, Double-K SRK/T, Masket, Modified Masket) and without historical data (Barrett True-K no history, Haigis-L, Hill Potvin Shammas PM, Shammas-PL) for the same IOL power and model. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed in different anterior chamber depths, axial lengths, back-to-front corneal radius ratio, keratometry, lens thickness, and preoperative spherical equivalents.

RESULTS

A total of 70 eyes of 70 patients were analyzed. The raytracing method had the smallest mean absolute PE (0.26 ± 0.24 D) and median absolute PE (0.16 D), and also had the largest percentage of eyes within a PE of ± 0.25 D (64.3%), ± 0.50 D (81.4%), ± 0.75 D (95.7%), and ± 1.00 D (100.0%). The raytracing method was significantly better than Double-K SRK/T, Haigis, Haigis-L, and Shammas-PL formulae in postoperative refraction prediction (all p < 0.001), but not better than the following formulae: Barrett True-K (p = 0.314), Barrett True-K no history (p = 0.163), Masket (p = 1.0), Modified Masket (p = 0.806), and Hill Potvin Shammas PM (p = 0.286). Subgroup analysis showed that refractive outcomes exhibited no statistically significant differences in the raytracing method (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Raytracing was the most accurate method in predicting target refraction and had a good consistency in calculating IOL power for myopic eyes after SMILE.

Research progress on prediction of postoperative intraocular lens position

With the progress in refractive cataract surgery, more intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas have been introduced with the aim of reducing the postoperative refractive error. The postoperative IOL position is critical to IOL power calculations. Therefore, the improvements in postoperative IOL position prediction will enable better selection of IOL power and postoperative refraction. In the past, the postoperative IOL position was mainly predicted by preoperative anterior segment parameters such as preoperative axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and corneal curvature. In recent years, some novel methods including the intraoperative ACD, crystalline lens geometry, and artificial intelligence (AI) of prediction of postoperative IOL position have been reported. This article attempts to give a review about the research progress on prediction of the postoperative IOL position.

Cataract surgery following refractive surgery: Principles to achieve optical success and patient satisfaction

A growing number of patients with prior refractive surgery are now presenting for cataract surgery. Surgeons face a number of unique challenges in this patient population that tends to be highly motivated to retain or regain functional uncorrected acuity postoperatively. Primary challenges include recognition of the specific type of prior surgery, use of appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, matching IOL style with spherical aberration profile, the recognition of corneal imaging patterns that are and are not compatible with toric and/or presbyopia-correcting lens implantation, and surgical technique modifications, which are particularly relevant in eyes with prior radial keratotomy or phakic IOL implantation. Despite advancements in IOL power formulae, corneal imaging, and IOL options that have improved our ability to achieve targeted postoperative refractive outcomes, accuracy and predictability remain inferior to eyes that undergo cataract surgery without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Thus, preoperative evaluation of patients who will and will not be candidates for postoperative refractive surgical enhancements is also paramount. We provide an overview of the specific challenges in this population and offer evidence-based strategies and considerations for optimizing surgical outcomes.

The tolerance of refractive errors of extended depth of focus intraocular lens in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the tolerance for refractive errors and visual outcomes of extended depth of focus intraocular lens (EDOF IOLs) in patients with previous corneal refractive surgery for myopia.

METHODS

Patients from Aier Eye Hospital of Wuhan University with previous myopia excimer laser correction underwent cataract surgery and implantation of an EDOF IOL. The follow-up period was three months. The uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuities (UDVA, UIVA, UNVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), defocus curve, optical quality, including modulation transfer functions (MTF) and Strehl ratio (SR), National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-14 for Chinese people (VF-14-CN), spectacle independence, and dysphotopsia were assessed.

RESULTS

At the final visit, UDVA, CDVA, UIVA, and UNVA (LogMAR) were 0.06 ± 0.09, 0.01 ± 0.06, 0.11 ± 0.08, 0.20 ± 0.10, respectively. The mean spherical equivalent (SE) was - 0.57 ± 0.58D, sphere and cylinder were - 0.24 ± 0.60D, - 0.70 ± 0.58D respectively. No statistical difference in UDVA between eyes with SE in ± 0.50 D and in ± 1.0 D (p > 0.05). Corneal astigmatism > 1.00D has no significant effect on postoperative visual acuity (p > 0.05). The defocus curve showed that visual acuity could reach 0.2 in the refractive range of + 0.50D ~ - 1.50D. SR and MTF values were all higher than before the surgery. In bilateral implantation patients, the VF-14-CN questionnaire score and visual quality were quite excellent.

CONCLUSION

The EDOF IOL have a certain tolerance for refractive errors and corneal astigmatism, and it's recommended for patients with prior myopia excimer laser surgery to achieve satisfactory visual performance.

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

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.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas with and without total keratometry and ray tracing in patients with previous myopic SMILE

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prediction error (PE) variance and absolute median PE of different intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas including last-generation formulas 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-small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) eyes.

SETTINGS

Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

METHODS

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. The refractive change induced by SMILE was defined as the difference between preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction.

RESULTS

98 eyes from 49 patients underwent bilateral myopic SMILE. The PE variance of Okulix was not significantly different compared with Barrett True-K with TK ( P = .471). The SDs 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 was 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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

A No-History Multi-Formula Approach to Improve the IOL Power Calculation after Laser Refractive Surgery: Preliminary Results

This retrospective comparative study proposes a multi-formula approach by comparing no-history IOL power calculation methods after myopic laser-refractive-surgery (LRS). One-hundred-thirty-two eyes of 132 patients who had myopic-LRS and cataract surgery were examined. ALMA, Barrett True-K (TK), Ferrara, Jin, Kim, Latkany and Shammas methods were evaluated in order to back-calculate refractive prediction error (PE). To eliminate any systematic error, constant optimization through zeroing-out the mean error (ME) was performed for each formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D) of PE were analyzed. PEs were plotted with corresponding mean keratometry (K), axial length (AL), and AL/K ratio; then, different ranges were evaluated. With optimized constants through zeroing-out ME (90 eyes), ALMA was better when K ≤ 38.00 D-AL > 28.00 mm and when 38.00 D < K ≤ 40.00 D-26.50 mm < AL ≤ 29.50 mm; Barrett-TK was better when K ≤ 38.00 D-AL ≤ 26.50 mm and when K > 40.00 D-AL ≤ 28.00 mm or AL > 29.50 mm; and both ALMA and Barrett-TK were better in other ranges. (p < 0.05) Without modified constants (132 eyes), ALMA was better when K > 38.00 D-AL ≤ 29.50 mm and when 36.00 < K ≤ 38.00 D-AL ≤ 26.50 mm; Barrett-TK was better when K ≤ 36.00 D and when K ≤ 38.00 D with AL > 29.50 mm; and both ALMA and Barrett-TK were better in other ranges (p < 0.05). A multi-formula approach, according to different ranges of K and AL, could improve refractive outcomes in post-myopic-LRS eyes.

Determination of Corneal Power after Refractive Surgery with Excimer Laser: A Concise Review

Refractive surgery with excimer laser has been a very common surgical procedure worldwide during the last decades. Currently, patients who underwent refractive surgery years ago are older, with a growing number of them now needing cataract surgery. To establish the power of the intraocular lens to be implanted in these patients, it is essential to define the true corneal power. However, since the refractive surgery modified the anterior, but not the posterior surface of the cornea, the determination of the corneal power in this group of patients is challenging. This article reviews the different sources of error in finding the true corneal power in these cases, and comments on several approaches, including the clinical history method as described originally by Holladay, and a modified version of it, as well as new alternatives based on corneal tomography, using devices that are able to measure the actual anterior and posterior corneal curvatures, which have emerged in recent years to address this issue.

The influence of corneal ablation patterns on prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of corneal ablation patterns on the prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.

Methods

Eighty-three post-myopic-LASIK eyes of 83 patients that underwent uneventful cataract surgery were retrospectively included. Predicted postoperative spherical equivalence (SE) was calculated for the implanted lens using the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formula. Prediction error at one month postsurgery was calculated as actual SE minus predicted SE. For each eye, area and decentration of the ablation zone was measured using the tangential curvature map. The associations between prediction errors and corneal ablation patterns were investigated.

Results

The mean prediction error was − 0.83 ± 1.00 D with the Haigis-L formula and − 1.00 ± 0.99 D with the Barrett True-K formula. Prediction error was positively correlated with keratometry (K) value and negatively correlated with ablation zone area using either formula, and negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone using the Barrett True-K formula (all P < 0.05). In the K < 37.08 D group, prediction error was negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone with both formulas (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that with the Haigis-L formula, prediction error was associated with axial length (AL), K value and decentration, and with the Barrett True-K formula, prediction error was associated with AL and decentration (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

A flatter cornea, larger corneal ablation zone and greater decentration will lead to more myopic prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.

IOL Power Calculations and Cataract Surgery in Eyes with Previous Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), with over 5 million procedures globally performed, will challenge ophthalmologists in the foreseeable future with accurate intraocular lens power calculations in an ageing population. After more than one decade since the introduction of SMILE, only one case report of cataract surgery with IOL implantation after SMILE is present in the peer-reviewed literature. Hence, the scope of the present multicenter study was to compare the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes between ray tracing and a range of empirically optimized formulae available in the ASCRS post-keratorefractive surgery IOL power online calculator. In our study of 11 post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery, ray tracing showed the smallest mean absolute error (0.40 D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 D (82/91%). The next best conventional formula was the Potvin–Hill formula with a mean absolute error of 0.66 D and an ±0.50/±1.00 D accuracy of 45 and 73%, respectively. Analyzing this first cohort of post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery and IOL implantation, ray tracing showed superior predictability in IOL power calculation over empirically optimized IOL power calculation formulae that were originally intended for use after Excimer-based keratorefractive procedures.

Comparing Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry Before and After Myopic Corneal Refractive Surgery With a Swept-Source OCT Biometer

Background

More recently, the swept-source OCT biometer-IOLMaster 700 has provided direct total corneal power measurement, named total keratometry. This study aims to evaluate whether standard keratometry (SK) and total keratometry (TK) with IOLMaster 700 can accurately reflect the corneal power changes induced by myopic corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

In this study, the biometric data measured with the swept-source OCT biometer—IOLMaster 700 before and 3 months after the myopic corneal refractive surgery were recorded. The changes of biological parameters, including SK, posterior keratometry (PK), and TK, and the difference between SK and TK were compared. In addition, the changes of SK and TK induced by the surgery were compared with the changes of spherical equivalent at the corneal plane (ΔSEco).

Results

A total of 74 eyes (74 patients) were included. The changes of SK, PK, TK, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness after refractive surgery were all statistically significant (all p < 0.01), while the change of white-to-white was not (p = 0.075). The difference between SK and TK was −0.03 ± 0.10D before the corneal refractive surgery and increased to −0.78 ± 0.26D after surgery. The changes of SK and the changes of TK induced by the surgery had a good correlation with the changes of SEco (r = 0.97). ΔSK was significantly smaller than ΔSEco, with a difference of −0.65 ± 0.54D (p < 0.01). However, the difference between ΔTK and ΔSEco (0.10 ± 0.50D) was not statistically significant (p = 0.08).

Conclusions

Using SK to reflect the changes induced by the myopic corneal refractive surgery may lead to underestimation, while TK could generate a more accurate result. The new parameter, TK, provided by the IOLMaster 700, appeared to provide an accurate, objective measure of corneal power that closely tracked the refractive change in corneal refractive surgery.

Accuracy of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Myopic Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of the following intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas: Barrett True-K No History (BTKNH), Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK (EVO 2.0), Haigis-L, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) average, and Shammas, designed for patients who have undergone previous myopic refractive surgery, independent of preexisting clinical history and corneal tomographic measurements.

METHODS

Data from 302 eyes of 302 patients who previously underwent myopic refractive surgery and had cataract surgery done by a single surgeon with only one IOL type inserted were included. The predicted refraction was calculated for each of the formulas and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Subgroup analysis based on the axial length and mean keratometry was performed.

RESULTS

On the basis of mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the formulas were ranked as follows: Haigis-L (0.61 diopters [D]), ASCRS average (0.63 D), BTKNH (0.67 D), EVO 2.0 (0.68 D), and Shammas (0.69 D). The Haigis-L had a statistically significant lower MAE compared with all formulas (P < .05) except the ASCRS average. Hyperopic mean prediction errors were seen in all formulas for axial lengths of greater than 30 mm or mean keratometry values of 35.00 diopters or less.

CONCLUSIONS

The Haigis-L and the ASCRS average formulas provided the most accurate results in the overall population evaluated in this study. Moreover, according to data observed, it is important to be careful handling very long eyes and very flat corneas because hyperopic refractions could be more common. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(7):443-449.].

Toric intraocular lenses: Evidence‐based use

Uncorrected refractive astigmatism degrades visual acuity. Spherical intraocular lenses (IOLs) leave astigmatic errors resident in the cornea manifest in refractive astigmatism. Toric IOLs, correcting for this corneal astigmatism, contribute to spectacle‐free vision in the pseudophakic eye. This review provides information to assist surgeons in a rational choice of eyes suitable for toric IOL implantation, methods of IOL cylinder power calculation, surgical techniques for toric IOLs and management of complications. With appropriate application of this information, correction of visually detrimental astigmatism can be achieved routinely.

Influence of Posterior Corneal Asphericity On Power Calculation Error After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis or Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of posterior corneal asphericity on postoperative calculation error using the Haigis-L and the Barrett formulas for eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

We assessed the mean absolute error (MAE) of two power calculation formulas, Barrett true-K and Haigis-L formulas, in a retrospective analysis of 34 eyes of 34 patients who underwent cataract surgery. We performed a regression analysis between corneal parameters (anterior and posterior Q values, Kmax, K1, and K2) and the MAE of each formula.

RESULTS

In the cohort, 11 eyes were of women and 23 of men. The average age of the study population was 66.5±8.6 years. The mean axial length was 24±4.7 mm, the mean anterior chamber depth was 3.27±0.7 mm, and the mean posterior Q-value was -0.15±0.28. The MAE of Haigis-L and Barrett true-K formulas were 0.72 and 0.68, respectively (P=0.54). The regression analysis showed a statistically significant relationship only between the error in refraction prediction and the posterior Q-value regardless of the formula used. The coefficient of determination was higher for the Barrett true-K formula (r=0.52; R2=0.28; P<0.05), compared with the Haigis-L (r=0.49; R2=0.25; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior corneal surface asphericity influences the refractive error of calculation using both Haigis-L and Barrett true-K formulas for eyes after a myopic PRK or laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis surgery.

Outcomes of the Haigis-L formula for calculating intraocular lens power in extreme long axis eyes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of refractive prediction by the Haigis-L formula compared to four other IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial lengths (AL > 29.0 mm) after LASIK.

SETTING

Shanghai Eye Disease and Prevention Treatment Center, Shanghai, China.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Twenty-nine eyes from 19 patients were available for analysis. The primary outcome measure was the arithmetic refractive prediction error (RPE), defined as the difference between the actual postoperative refractive error and the intended formula-derived refractive target. The main outcome measure was the median absolute refraction prediction error (MedAE). The accuracy of the Haigis-L was compared with Barrett True K No History, Shammas-PL, SRK/Tcorrected K, and Holladay 2corrected K methods to calculate IOL power.

RESULTS

The Haigis-L formula had a significantly larger MedAE than Shammas-PL and SRK/Tcorrected K formulas (P = 0.005 and P = 0.015, respectively), a smaller percentage of eyes within ±1.50 diopter (D) of predicted error in refraction compared with Shammas-PL and SRK/Tcorrected K formulas (P = 0.014 and P = 0.005, respectively). The refractive prediction errors of 6 eyes with corneal keratometry of less than 35 D by Haigis-L all had more than 1.95 D of myopic overestimation, while none of the other four methods resulted in an absolute error over 1.95 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The Haigis-L formula was relatively accurate in predicting extreme long axis (>29.0 mm) eyes after myopic LASIK surgery but less accurate for eyes with extremely flat corneas (<35 D). SRK/Tcorrected K and Shammas-PL performed better than the other methods for refractive prediction in this type of eyes.

SYNOPSIS

Haigis-L performed worse than SRK/Tcorrected K and Shammas-PL in predicting IOL power in extremely long axis (>29.0 mm) eyes after myopic LASIK, especially with extremely flat corneas (K < 35 D).

Conditional Process Analysis for Effective Lens Position According to Preoperative Axial Length

PURPOSE

To predict the effective lens position (ELP) using conditional process analysis according to preoperative axial length.

SETTING

Yeouido St. Mary hospital.

DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

METHODS

This study included 621 eyes from 621 patients who underwent conventional cataract surgery at Yeouido St. Mary Hospital. Preoperative axial length (AL), mean corneal power (K), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were measured by partial coherence interferometry. AL was used as an independent variable for the prediction of ELP, and 621 eyes were classified into four groups according to AL. Using conditional process analysis, we developed 24 structural equation models, with ACD and K acting as mediator, moderator or not included as variables, and investigated the model that best predicted ELP.

RESULTS

When AL was 23.0 mm or shorter, the predictability for ELP was highest when ACD and K acted as moderating variables (R2 = 0.217). When AL was between 23.0 mm and 24.5 mm or longer than 26.0 mm, the predictability was highest when K acted as a mediating variable and ACD acted as a moderating variable (R2 = 0.217 and R2 = 0.401). On the other hand, when AL ranged from 24.5 mm to 26.0 mm, the model with ACD as a mediating variable and K as a moderating variable was the most accurate (R2 = 0.220).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal structural equation model for ELP prediction in each group varied according to AL. Conditional process analysis can be an alternative to conventional multiple linear regression analysis in ELP prediction.

Development of a New Method for Calculating Intraocular Lens Power after Myopic Laser In Situ Keratomileusis by Combining the Anterior-Posterior Ratio of the Corneal Radius of the Curvature with the Double-K Method

Background: A new method, the Iida–Shimizu–Shoji (ISS) method, is proposed for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power that combines the anterior–posterior ratio of the corneal radius of the curvature after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and to compare the predictability of the method with that of other IOL formulas after LASIK. Methods: The estimated corneal power before LASIK (Kpre) in the double-K method was 43.86 D according to the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery calculator, and the K readings of the IOL master were used as the K values after LASIK (Kpost). The factor for correcting the target refractive value (correcting factor [C-factor]) was calculated from the correlation between the anterior–posterior ratio of the corneal radius of the curvature and the refractive error obtained using this method for 30 eyes of 30 patients. Results: Fifty-nine eyes of 59 patients were included. The mean values of the numerical and absolute prediction errors obtained using the ISS method were −0.02 ± 0.45 diopter (D) and 0.35 ± 0.27 D, respectively. The prediction errors using the ISS method were within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D in 49.2%, 76.3%, and 96.6% of the eyes, respectively. The predictability of the ISS method was comparable to or better than some of the other formulas. Conclusions: The ISS method is useful for calculating the IOL power in eyes treated with cataract surgery after LASIK.

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 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.

[Calculation of intraocular lens power after trabeculectomy]

PURPOSE

To assess biometric changes in eyes after trabeculectomy (TE) and its impact on refractive outcomes of phacoemulsification (PE) in order to determine the corrections for calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included two groups of patients: the 1^st group consisted of 116 patients who were assessed by optical biometry (IOL-Master 500) for mean biometric values before and after TE; the 2^nd group included 31 patients with history of TE (study subgroup) and 47 individuals without glaucoma (control subgroup) who underwent PE with subsequent comparison of IOL calculation accuracy.

RESULTS

There was significant axial length (AL) shortening in the 1^st group from 23.28±0.97 to 23.19±0.97 mm (p<0.001) 6 months after TE, which positively correlated (r=0.296, p=0.001) with intraocular pressure (IOP) decrease (from 25.4±5.34 to 17.2±4.42 mm Hg, p<0.001). Mean keratometry and anterior chamber depth values did not significantly change after TE. Mean IOL power calculation error after PE in the 2^nd group was -0.05±0.47 D and 0.003±0.62 D for the control and study subgroups, respectively (p=0.697). However, significant impact of preoperative IOP on IOL power calculation error was discovered in the study subgroup (R²=0.526, p<0.001), but not in the control subgroup (R²=0.061, p=0.052). Based on linear regression, the expected IOL power calculation errors depending on the preoperative IOP were determined for patients with history of TE.

CONCLUSION

AL shortening due to decrease in IOP in patients with history of TE leads to IOL power calculation errors. Expected IOL calculation error related to preoperative IOP level was determined, which could help improve refractive outcomes of PE in patients with history of TE.

Refractive Accuracy of Barrett True-K vs Intraoperative Aberrometry for IOL Power Calculation in Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes

Purpose

To compare the refractive predictability of intraoperative aberrometry (IA, ORA, Alcon) and Barrett True-K/Universal II formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes.

Methods

Retrospective study of normal and post-corneal refractive surgery eyes that underwent cataract surgery with IA at tertiary academic center. Preoperatively, IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (normal eyes) or Barrett True-K (post-corneal refractive surgery eyes) formulas. Intraoperatively, aphakic IA measurements were used for IOL power calculations. Mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated. Refractive predictability was also evaluated in short, normal, and long eyes.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-three eyes were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the MAE of preoperative formulas and IA for post-hyperopic laser vision correction (LVC), post-myopic LVC, post-radial keratotomy (RK) and normal eyes. For prediction error within ±0.5 D in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes, range of agreement between Barrett True-K and IA ranged from 28% (7/25) of the time in post-RK eyes to 49% (40/81) of the time in post-hyperopic LVC; the corresponding value for Barrett Universal II/IA was 62% (64/103) in normal eyes. When there was disagreement, IA outperformed Barrett True-K in post-hyperopic LVC eyes and Barrett formula outperformed IA in post-myopic LVC, post-RK, and normal eyes.

Conclusion

IA appears to be comparable to Barrett formulas for IOL power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. In post-hyperopic LVC, IA yields better results compared to Barrett True-K formula; in real-life scenarios, IA reveals statistical advantage over the Barrett True-K no history formula for eyes post-hyperopic LVC.

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 provide excellent outcomes in selected cases that meet certain corneal topographic criteria.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry, Barrett True-K With and Without Posterior Cornea Measurements, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L Formulas After Myopic Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Barrett TKNH with posterior corneal measurements (Barrett TKNH with PC), Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas in patients with cataract who had prior myopic refractive surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with prior myopic refractive surgery undergoing cataract extraction. Mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) of refraction prediction were compared for each formula. Interactions of each biometry measurement were modeled for each formula to evaluate those with the most significant impact on refraction prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen eyes of 79 patients were analyzed. MAE was 0.40 ± 0.33 diopters (D) for intraoperative aberrometry and 0.42 ± 0.31 D for the Barrett TKNH, 0.38 ± 0.30 D for the Barrett TKNH with PC, 0.47 ± 0.38 D for the Shammas-PL, and 0.56 ± 0.39 D for the Haigis-L formulas. Comparisons between formulas were significant for Barrett TKNH versus Barrett TKNH with PC formulas (P = .046), Barrett TKNH with PC versus Shammas-PL formulas (P = .023), and for all comparisons with the Haigis-L formula (P < .001), and not significant for all other comparisons (P > .05). Eyes were within ±0.50 D of prediction 73%, 72%, 69%, 62%, and 52% of the time for intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett TKNH with PC, Barrett TKNH, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas, respectively. Corneal asphericity (Q value) was significantly associated with prediction error for all five methods. Changes in anterior chamber depth had a significant impact on Shammas-PL prediction errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer technology using information from the posterior cornea modestly improved outcomes when compared to established methods for intraocular lens selection in eyes that had previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(1):60-68.].

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

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the methods for calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery.

SETTING

EENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.].

Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas according to axial length after myopic corneal laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the predictive accuracy of 4 no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with prior myopic excimer laser surgery, classified in 4 groups according to their axial length (AL), and investigate the relationship between AL and predictive accuracy.

SETTING

Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Republic of Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

IOL power was calculated with the Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, and Triple-S formulas in 4 groups classified according to AL. Primary outcomes were the median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 diopter (D).

RESULTS

This study included 107 eyes of 107 patients. The Barrett True-K had the lowest MedAE when AL was <26.0 mm (0.30 D) and between 26.0 and 28.0 mm (0.54 D); in these subgroups, it had the highest percentages with a PE within ±0.50 D (71.4% and 46.2%). For AL between 28.0 and 30.0 mm, the Triple-S method showed the lowest MedAE (0.43 D) and highest percentage with a PE within ±0.50 D (58.3%). For AL ≥30.0 mm, the Shammas-PL formula produced the lowest MedAE (0.41 D) and highest percentage with a PE within ±0.50 D (58.3%). The Barrett True-K was the only formula with a correlation between AL and PE (r = -0.219/P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive accuracy of no-history IOL formulas depends on the AL. The Barrett True-K had the highest accuracy when AL was < 28.0 mm and the Triple-S when it ranged from 28.0 mm to 30.0 mm, whereas the Shammas-PL was more accurate when AL was ≥30.0 mm.

Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) for myopia and myopic astigmatism.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative case series.

METHODS

Preoperative evaluation included optical biometry using IOLMaster 500 and corneal tomography using Pentacam HR. The corneal tomography measurements were repeated at 3 months postoperatively. The change of spherical equivalent due to SMILE was calculated by the manifest refraction at corneal plane (SMILE-Dif). A theoretical model, involving the virtual implantation of the same IOL before and after SMILE, was used, and the IOL power calculations were performed using ray tracing (OKULIX, version 9.06) and third- (Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) and fourth-generation (Haigis-L and Haigis) formulas. The difference between the IOL-induced refractive error at corneal plane before and after SMILE (IOL-Dif) was compared with SMILE-Dif. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-Dif-IOL-Dif.

RESULTS

The study included 204 eyes that underwent SMILE. The PE with ray tracing was -0.06 ± 0.40 diopter (D); Haigis-L, -0.39 ± 0.62 D; Haigis, 0.70 ± 0.48 D; Hoffer Q, 0.84 ± 0.47 D; Holladay 1, 1.21 ± 0.51 D; and SRK/T, 1.46 ± 0.54 D. The PE with ray tracing was significantly smaller compared with that of all formulas (P ≤ .001). The PE variance with ray tracing was σ2 = 0.159, being significantly more homogenous compared with that of all formulas (P ≤ .011, F ≥ 6.549). Ray tracing resulted in an absolute PE of 0.5 D or lesser in 81.9% of the cases, followed by Haigis-L (53.4%), Haigis (35.3%), Hoffer Q (25.5%), Holladay 1 (6.4%), and SRK/T (2.9%) formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Ray tracing was the most accurate approach for IOL power calculation after myopic SMILE.

Intraocular lens power calculation using adjusted corneal power in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prediction accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using adjusted corneal power according to the posterior/anterior corneal curvature radii ratio in the Haigis formula (Haigis-E) in patients with a history of prior myopic laser vision correction.

METHODS

Seventy eyes from 70 cataract patients who underwent cataract surgery and had a history of myopic laser vision correction were enrolled. The adjusted corneal power obtained with conventional keratometry (K) was calculated using the posterior/anterior corneal curvature radii ratio measured by a single Scheimpflug camera. In eyes longer than 25.0 mm, half of the Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment was applied. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes that achieved a postoperative refractive prediction error within ± 0.50 diopters (D) based on the Haigis-E method was compared with those in the Shammas, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K no-history methods.

RESULTS

The MedAE predicted using the Haigis-E (0.33 D) was significantly smaller than that obtained using the Shammas (0.44 D), Haigis-L (0.43 D), and Barrett True-K (0.44 D) methods (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.014, respectively). The percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D of refractive prediction error using the Haigis-E (78.6%) was significantly greater than that produced using the Shammas (57.1%), Haigis-L (58.6%), and Barrett True-K (61.4%) methods (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

IOL power calculation using the adjusted corneal power according to the posterior/anterior corneal curvature radii ratio and modified WK adjustment in the Haigis formula could improve the refraction prediction accuracy after cataract surgery in eyes with prior myopic laser vision correction.

Changes in Central Corneal Thickness With Air-Puff-Induced Corneal Deformation Using a Method to Correct Scheimpflug and Refractive Distortion

PURPOSE

To establish a method to determine central corneal thickness (CCT) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) of an air-puff-deformed cornea at the highest concavity (HC) state.

METHODS

The Fink method for refractive correction of Scheimpflug images of a convex pre-deformed (PRE) cornea was implemented for 155 eyes of 155 participants imaged with the Corvis ST (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). This method was subsequently modified for the HC state of deformation. The tracked edges of each participant's cornea were exported at the PRE and HC states. Ten participants who had a visible crystalline lens in the image were selected to determine ACD in both states. The center points on the corneal tracked edges and lens were used to determine uncorrected CCT and ACD, respectively.

RESULTS

Average undeformed CCTPRE was significantly lower than deformed CCT_HC (584 ± 31 and 626 ± 34 µm, respectively) (P < .0001). No significant difference was found for the corrected ACD between the two states. Corrected CCT and ACD were significantly greater than the corresponding uncorrected values for both deformation states (P < .0001). Percent change in CCT was found to be correlated to change in arc length at HC (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Distortion in Corvis ST images at the HC state can be corrected using a modified Fink method. CCT was found to increase in the HC state, compared to the PRE state. The CCT change during deformation may be important in the study of the compressive response of the cornea. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(6):422-428.].

Color light-emitting diode reflection topography: Validation of Equivalent K Reading for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal myopic refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the Equivalent K reading (EKR) from Color Light-Emitting Diode Corneal Topographer (Cassini, iOptics) to that of other no-history formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

SETTING

Centro de Oftalmología Barraquer, Barcelona, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 37 eyes, the refractive outcomes of the Cassini EKR entered into the Haigis formula were compared to those of the Barrett-True K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL formulas and the Triple-S method combined with the Haigis formula. Optimized lens constants for virgin eyes were used. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D and ±1.00 D were calculated.

RESULTS

The Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Barrett True-K no-history methods produced a myopic mean PE that was significantly different from zero (p<0.01, p<0.01 and p=0.01, respectively), whereas the mean PEs of Cassini EKR and the Triple-S combined with the Haigis formula were not different from zero. Repeated measures ANOVA disclosed a significant difference among all methods (p<0.0001). The MedAE of the Cassini EKR, Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Triple-S were, respectively, 0.34D, 0.34D, 0.49 D, 0.48 D and 0.31D (p=0.0026).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the combination of standard Haigis formula with Cassini EKR was comparable to other no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

Ray-tracing Calculation Using Scheimpflug Tomography of Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus IOLs Following Myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate a ray-tracing formula for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of diffractive extended depth of focus IOLs after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) compared to formulas from an established online calculator.

METHODS

This retrospective, consecutive case series included patients after cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (AT LARA, Carl Zeiss Meditec; Symfony, Johnson & Johnson) and a history of myopic LASIK. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster; Carl Zeiss Meditec) and corneal tomography, including true net power (TNP) (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). To evaluate the measurements, the simulated keratometry values (SimK) were compared to the TNP. Regarding IOL calculation, the mean prediction error, mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE and MedAE), and number of eyes within ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopters (D) from the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Barrett True K No History formulas to the Potvin-Hill and Haigis with TNP (Pentacam) formulas were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-six eyes matched the inclusion criteria with a mean spherical equivalent of -6.26 ± 3.25 diopters (D) preoperatively and -0.79 ± 0.75 D postoperatively. The mean difference from SimK and TNP was significantly different from zero (P < .001; -1.24 ± 0.81 D). The best performing formulas by MedAE were the Potvin-Hill and Barrett True K No History (0.39 ± 0.78 and 0.64 ± 1.00 D). The formula with the most eyes within ±0.50 D was the Potvin-Hill (64%), followed by the Barrett True K No History (44%). For MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D, the Potvin-Hill formula was significantly better than the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Haigis-TNP formulas (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Calculation of IOLs in patients who had LASIK remains less predicable than calculations for virgin eyes. Using ray-tracing to calculate diffractive EDOF IOLs after myopic LASIK, the Potvin-Hill formula outperformed established formulas in terms of the percentage within target refraction and the MAE. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(4):231-239.].

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Purpose

To compare the refractive predictability of ray tracing IOL calculations based on OCT data versus traditional IOL calculation formulas based on reflectometry in patients with a history of previous myopic laser vision correction (LVC).

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective interventional single-arm study of IOL calculations for cataract and refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients with a history of myopic LVC. Preoperative biometric data were collected using an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device (Haag-Streit Lenstar 900) and two optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Tomey Casia SS-1000 and Heidelberg Engineering Anterion). Traditional post LVC formulas (Barret True-K no-history and Haigis-L) with reflectometry data, and ray tracing IOL calculation software (OKULIX, Panopsis GmbH, Mainz, Germany) with OCT data were used to calculate IOL power. Follow-up examination was 2 to 3 months after surgery. The main outcome measure, refractive prediction error (RPE), was calculated as the achieved postoperative refraction minus the predicted refraction.

Results

We found that the best ray tracing combination (Anterion-OKULIX) resulted in an arithmetic prediction error statistically significantly lower than that achieved with the best formula calculation (Barret True-K no-history) (−0.13 D and −0.32 D, respectively, adjusted p = 0.01), while the Barret TK NH had the lowest SD. The absolute prediction error was 0.26 D and 0.35 D for Anterion-OKULIX and Barret TK NH, respectively, but this was not statistically significantly different. The Anterion-OKULIX calculation also had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, compared to both formulas and within ±0.50 and ±0.75 compared to the Haigis-L (p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Ray tracing calculation based on OCT data from the Anterion device can yield similar or better results than traditional post LVC formulas. Ray tracing calculations are based on individual measurements and do not rely on the ocular history of the patient and are therefore applicable for any patient, also without previous refractive surgery.

The impact of cataract progression on accuracy of intraocular lens power measurement

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of cataract progression using the Haigis formula-calculated intraocular lens (IOL) power and investigate the accuracy of IOL power measured at different time points.

Methods

This prospective study was performed on 75 eyes of 75 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Preoperative ocular parameters including axial length (AL), keratometry (K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal astigmatism, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) examined at the two time points, more than 3 months preoperatively and preoperative 1 day were compared. The ocular parameters measured in the two time points were used to calculate the predicted implanted IOL power and the actual IOL power was chosen on the basis of parameters measured earlier before surgery using the Haigis formula. The mean numerical error (MNE) and mean absolute error (MAE) predicted by the two time points were also compared.

Results

There were significant differences in the ACD, IOL power, UDVA and CDVA (P<0.01), but no statistical differences in AL, mean K and corneal astigmatism (P>0.05) during the average of 5.6 months before surgery. No statistically significant difference was detected in MNE (P>0.05), while the MAE had a significant difference in the two time points (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The IOL power measured earlier before surgery might result in a higher accuracy and the postoperative refractive outcome tended towards emmetropia.

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

PURPOSE

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Comparative analysis of predictability and accuracy of American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery online calculator with Haigis-L formula in post-myopic laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis refractive surgery eyes

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to compare the predictability and accuracy of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) online calculator with the Haigis-L formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post myopic laser-assisted in-situ keratomileuses (LASIK) eyes undergoing cataract surgery and also to analyze the postoperative refractive outcome among the ASCRS average, maximum and minimum values.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted on post myopic LASIK eyes which underwent cataract surgery between June 2017 and December 2019. IOL power was calculated using both Haigis-L & ASCRS methods. Implanted IOL power was based on the ASCRS method. The expected postoperative refraction for IOL power based on the Haigis-L formula was calculated and compared with the Spherical Equivalent (SE) obtained from the patient's actual refraction. Prediction error (PE) & Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was calculated. Intragroup analysis of ASCRS values was done.

Results:

Among the 41 eyes analyzed, pre-operative and post-operative mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.58 ± 0.21 and 0.15 ± 0.26 logMAR, respectively. In the ASCRS method, 36 (87.8%) and 40 (97.6%) eyes had PE within ± 0.5D and ± 1.0 D, respectively, whereas, in the Haigis-L method, 29 (70.7%) eyes, and 38 (92.7%) eyes had PE within ± 0.5D and ± 1.0 D, respectively. Among the ASCRS subgroups, ASCRS average, maximum and minimum values had 83%, 80.6%, and 48.8% eyes with SE within ± 0.5D, respectively.

Conclusion:

ASCRS method can be considered as an equally efficient method of IOL power calculation as the Haigis-L method in eyes which have undergone post myopic LASIK refractive surgery. ASCRS maximum & average values gave better emmetropic results.

Repeatability of OCT-Based versus Scheimpflug- and Reflection-Based Keratometry in Patients with Hyperosmolar and Normal Tear Film

Purpose

To compare the repeatability of keratometry between different instruments in patients with hyperosmolar tear film and a control group.

Patients and Methods

Subjects with tear-film osmolarity of 316 mOsm/L or more in either eye or 308 m/Osm/L or lower in both eyes were assigned to the hyperosmolar and the control group, respectively. The test eye was the eye with higher osmolarity in the hyperosmolar group and randomly chosen in the control group. The repeatability of keratometry was compared between a reflectometry device (Haag-Streit Lenstar 900), a Scheimpflug device (Oculus Pentacam HR) and two optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Tomey Casia SS-1000 and Heidelberg Anterion), based on two measurements from each device.

Results

The study included 94 subjects (31 hyperosmolar and 63 controls). Both OCT devices had higher mean differences of average simulated keratometry (SimK) vs the Lenstar in both groups, though all differences in means were <0.07 D. The Casia had the highest mean vector difference of SimK astigmatism in the control group (differences in means <0.11 D). These differences of the instruments were statistically significant (p < 0.02), except for the Anterion in the control group. With all subjects, the coefficient of repeatability varied from 0.1 to 0.3 for average SimK (highest for both OCT devices) and from 0.4 to 0.7 for SimK astigmatism (highest for the Casia). Similar results were found for total corneal power (OCT devices compared to the Pentacam).

Conclusion

Both OCT devices show more variability in average SimK and the Casia more variability in SimK astigmatism compared to the Lenstar and the Pentacam. However, the results suggested that repeatability was not influenced by osmolarity.