New factor to improve reliability of the clinical history method for intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

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.

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of myopic corneal refractive surgery research: from 1979 to 2022

Background

Myopic corneal refractive surgery is one of the most prevalent ophthalmic procedures for correcting ametropia. This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of research in the field of corneal refractive surgery over the past 40 years in order to describe the current international status and to identify most influential factors, while highlighting research hotspots.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis based on the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was used to analyze the publication trends in research related to myopic corneal refractive surgery. VOSviewer v.1.6.10 was used to construct the knowledge map in order to visualize the publications, distribution of countries, international collaborations, author productivity, source journals, cited references, keywords, and research hotspots in this field.

Results

A total of 4,680 publications on myopic corneal refractive surgery published between 1979 and 2022 were retrieved. The United States has published the most papers, with Emory University contributing to the most citations. The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery published the greatest number of articles, and the top 10 cited references mainly focused on outcomes and wound healing in refractive surgery. Previous research emphasized "radial keratotomy (RK)" and excimer laser-associated operation methods. The keywords containing femtosecond (FS) laser associated with "small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)" and its "safety" had higher burst strength, indicating a shift of operation methods and coinciding with the global trends in refractive surgery. The document citation network was clustered into five groups: (1) outcomes of refractive surgery: (2) preoperative examinations for refractive surgery were as follows: (3) complications of myopic corneal refractive surgery; (4) corneal wound healing and cytobiology research related to photorefractive laser keratotomy; and (5) biomechanics of myopic corneal refractive surgery.

Conclusion

The bibliometric analysis in this study may provide scholars with valuable to information and help them better understand the global trends in myopic corneal refractive surgery research frontiers. Two stages of rapid development occurred around 1991 and 2013, shortly after the innovation of PRK and SMILE surgical techniques. The most cited articles mainly focused on corneal wound healing, clinical outcomes, ocular aberration, corneal ectasia, and corneal topography, representing the safety of the new techniques.

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.].

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.

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 Calculation Without Corneal Parameters: A New Option

OBJECTIVES

To compare different methods in calculating the corneal radius (R) to be used in case of intraocular lens power calculations when it is immeasurable.

METHODS

The right eyes of 1,960 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups. The first group of right eyes (group A) was divided in three groups according to the axial length (AL) (≤21.99 mm, between 22 and 24.99 mm, and ≥25 mm). In these groups, the correlation between the AL and the corneal radius (R) provided three different regression formulas. The second group of right eyes (group B) was used to test the following methods of estimating the R: the regression formulas determined from group A, formula from Logan et al., formula from Stenström, the mean R calculated from group A, and the fellow eye group B. A Student paired T test was used for the statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

In case of AL≤21.99, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=0.00±0.09 mm, P=0.94, mean=0.05±0.21 mm, P=0.05, mean=0.05±0.22 mm, P=0.08, respectively). In case of AL between 22 and 24.99 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.01±0.09 mm, P=0.38, mean=0.01±0.21 mm, P=0.12, mean=0.01±0.24 mm, P=0.18, respectively). In case of AL≥25 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.003±0.08 mm, P=0.94 mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The new calculated regression formulas seem to represent a reliable method to calculate the R when it is undetectable, as in case of corneal dystrophies.

An Advanced Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA) in post refractive surgery IOL power calculation with unknown preoperative parameters

PURPOSE

To test a new method to calculate the Intraocular Lens (IOL) power, that combines R Factor and ALxK methods, that we called Advance Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study.

SETTING

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Italy.

METHODS

Ninety one eyes of 91 patients previously treated with Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) or Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) that underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were analyzed. For 68 eyes it was possible to zero out the Mean Errors (ME) for each formula and for selected IOL models, in order to eliminate the bias of the lens factor (A-Costant). Main outcome, measured in this study, was the median absolute error (MedAE) of the refraction prediction.

RESULTS

In the sample with ME zeroed (68 eyes) both R Factor and ALxK methods resulted in MedAE of 0.67 D. For R Factor 33 eyes (48.53%) reported a refractive error <0.5D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1D, For ALxK method, 32 eyes (47.06%) reported a refractive error <0.5 D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1 D. ALMA method, reported a MedAE of 0.55 D, and an higher number of patients with a refractive error <0.5 D (35 eyes, 51.47%), and with a refractive error <1 D (54 eyes, 79.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results obtained from this study, ALMA method can improve R Factor and ALxK methods. This improvement is confirmed both by zeroing the mean error and without zeroing it.

Network Meta-analysis of No-History Methods to Calculate Intraocular Lens Power in Eyes With Previous Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To systematically compare and rank the predictability of no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic laser refractive surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry (www.ClinicalTrial.gov) were used to systematically search trials published up to August 2019. Included were case series studies reporting the following outcomes in patients with cataract undergoing phacoemulsification after laser refractive surgery: percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE). A network meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA software version 13.1 (STATACorp LLC).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving 1,098 eyes and 19 formulas were identified. A network meta-analysis for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D found that ray-tracing (Okulix), intraoperative aberrometry (Optiwave Refractive Analysis [ORA]), BESSt, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) (D-K SRK/T), and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas were more predictive than the Wang/Koch/Maloney, Shammas-PL, modified Rosa, Ferrara, and Equivalent K reading at 4.5 mm using the Double-K Holladay 1 formulas. With regard to ranking, the top four formulas as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D were the Okulix, ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). With regard to MAE, the ORA showed lower errors when compared to the Shammas-PL formula. In this regard, the top four formulas based on the SUCRA values were the Triple-S, BESSt, ORA, and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas. The SToP (SRK/T), ORA, Fourier-Domain OCT-Based, and BESSt formulas had the lowest MedAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all three outcome measures of highest percentages of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D, lowest MAE, and lowest MedAE, the top three no-history formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic corneal laser refractive surgery were: ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):481-490.].

Calculation of the Real Corneal Refractive Power after Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Pentacam, When Only the Preoperative Refractive Error is Known

Purpose

To check if a regression formula, IOLMaster-derived, to calculate the real corneal power after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), can give reliable results utilizing the Pentacam.

Methods

Pre- and postoperative IOLMaster, Km, and Pentacam K readings were measured. Patients who had myopic PRK were divided into two groups: the first group (108 eyes) was utilized to check which of the preop Pentacam K readings (P-Kpre) better fitted with the preop IOLMaster measurements; in the second group (120 eyes), the real K (Kr), obtained adding the effective treatment to the P-Kpre, were compared with the K readings calculated with the IOLMaster-derived formula (Kc). Moreover, an attempt to find a different formula utilizing the P-Kpre was made.

Results

In group 1, the best correlation was found between IOLMaster Km and Pentacam equivalent K readings (r2 0.9519). In group 2, the comparison between Kr and Pentacam postop Km showed 69 eyes (57%) with differences >0.5 D and 38 eyes (31%) with differences >1 D, (P < 0.001). The comparison between Kr and Kc showed 55 eyes (45%) with differences >0.5 D and 22 eyes (18%) with differences >1 D, (P < 0.001). Moreover, a regression formula K = EKR - [ETcp + (0.8114 ∗ ETcp - 0.2031)] was obtained in order to calculate the K readings to be used with the Pentacam in the IOL power calculation in case the effective treatment is known.

Conclusions

K calculated with the new formula could be used in patients that underwent refractive corneal surgery in case a Pentacam device is used, pending further studies conducted in clinical practice to establish its accuracy and effectiveness. This study further proves that data obtained from different machines cannot be used interchangeably.

Axial Length Shortening After Cataract Surgery: New Approach to Solve the Question

Purpose

To check if optical biometry can detect eventual corneal power (Km) and axial length (AL) cataract surgery-related changes that could influence the refractive outcome.

Methods

Patients scheduled for sequential bilateral cataract surgery between January and September 2017 were included in the present study. One hundred ninety-six eyes of 98 patients (48 males) were selected. Before surgery of the first eye, patients underwent a complete ophthalmic examination, including IOLMaster biometry; the same evaluations were repeated in both eyes the day before the fellow eye cataract surgery, performed at least 2 months after the first one. The differences in Km and AL in the first operated eyes were evaluated, and the fellow eyes were used as controls.

Results

Km differences in the operated eyes ranged from −1.97 to +0.98 diopter (D) (mean = −0.02 ± 0.36 D) (P = 0.89); in the nonoperated eyes they ranged from −0.6 to +0.7 D (mean = 0 ± 0.20 D) (P = 0.91). The AL differences (pseudophakic option) in the operated eyes ranged from −0.35 to +0.15 mm (mean = −0.10 ± 0.08 mm) (P < 0.001); with the aphakic option they ranged from −0.24 to + 0.26 mm (mean = 0.01 ± 0.08 mm) (P= 0.38). In the nonoperated eyes, the AL differences ranged from −0.04 to +0.06 mm (mean= 0 ± 0.02 mm) (P = 0.02).

Conclusions

The modern phaco-technique seems not to induce changes in Km and AL, supporting the hypothesis that the differences in AL are due to an incorrect estimation in pseudophakic eyes.

Translational Relevance

The results of our study may improve the AL measurements in pseudophakic eyes.

Improving accuracy of corneal power measurement with partial coherence interferometry after corneal refractive surgery using a multivariate polynomial approach

Background

To improve accuracy of IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) in corneal power measurement after myopic excimer corneal refractive surgery (MECRS) using multivariate polynomial analysis (MPA).

Methods

One eye of each of 403 patients (mean age 31.53 ± 8.47 years) was subjected to MECRS for a myopic defect, measured as spherical equivalent, ranging from − 9.50 to − 1 D (mean − 4.55 ± 2.20 D). Each patient underwent a complete eye examination and IOLMaster scan before surgery and at 1, 3 and 6 months follow up. Axial length (AL), flatter keratometry value (K1), steeper keratometry value (K2), mean keratometry value (KM) and anterior chamber depth measured from the corneal endothelium to the anterior surface of the lens (ACD) were used in a MPA to devise a method to improve accuracy of KM measurements.

Results

Using AL, K1, K2 and ACD measured after surgery in polynomial degree 2 analysis, mean error of corneal power evaluation after MECRS was + 0.16 ± 0.19 D.

Conclusions

MPA was found to be an effective tool in devising a method to improve precision in corneal power evaluation in eyes previously subjected to MECRS, according to our results.

Calculation of Unknown Preoperative K Readings in Postrefractive Surgery Patients

Purpose

To determine the unknown preoperative K readings (Kpre) to be used in history-based methods, for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients who have undergone myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods

A regression formula generated from the left eyes of 174 patients who had undergone PRK for myopia or for myopic astigmatism was compared with other methods in 168 right eyes. The Pearson index and paired t-test were utilized for statistical analysis.

Results

The differences between Kpre and those obtained with the other methods were as follows: 0.61 ± 0.94 D (range: −3.94 to 2.05 D, p < 0.01) subtracting the effective treatment, 0.01 ± 0.86 D (range: −2.61 to 2.34 D, p = 0.82) with Rosa's formula, −0.02 ± 1.31 D (range: −3.43 to 3.68 D, p = 0.82) with the current study formula, and −0.43 ± 1.40 D (range: −3.98 to 3.12 D, p < 0.01) utilizing a mean K (Km) of 43.5 D.

Conclusions

These formulas may permit the utilization of history-based methods, that is, the double-K method in calculating the IOL power following PRK when Kpre are unknown.

Corneal power evaluation after myopic corneal refractive surgery using artificial neural networks

Background

Efficacy and high availability of surgery techniques for refractive defect correction increase the number of patients who undergo to this type of surgery. Regardless of that, with increasing age, more and more patients must undergo cataract surgery. Accurate evaluation of corneal power is an extremely important element affecting the precision of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and errors in this procedure could affect quality of life of patients and satisfaction with the service provided. The available device able to measure corneal power have been tested to be not reliable after myopic refractive surgery.

Methods

Artificial neural networks with error backpropagation and one hidden layer were proposed for corneal power prediction. The article analysed the features acquired from the Pentacam HR tomograph, which was necessary to measure the corneal power. Additionally, several billion iterations of artificial neural networks were conducted for several hundred simulations of different network configurations and different features derived from the Pentacam HR. The analysis was performed on a PC with Intel^® Xeon^® X5680 3.33 GHz CPU in Matlab^® Version 7.11.0.584 (R2010b) with Signal Processing Toolbox Version 7.1 (R2010b), Neural Network Toolbox 7.0 (R2010b) and Statistics Toolbox (R2010b).

Results and conclusions

A total corneal power prediction error was obtained for 172 patients (113 patients forming the training set and 59 patients in the test set) with an average age of 32 ± 9.4 years, including 67% of men. The error was at an average level of 0.16 ± 0.14 diopters and its maximum value did not exceed 0.75 dioptres. The Pentacam parameters (measurement results) providing the above result are tangential anterial/posterior. The corneal net power and equivalent k-reading power. The analysis time for a single patient (a single eye) did not exceed 0.1 s, whereas the time of network training was about 3 s for 1000 iterations (the number of neurons in the hidden layer was 400).

New Scheimpflug camera device in measuring corneal power changes after myopic laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of a combined Scheimpflug camera-Placido disk device (Sirius, CSO, Italy) in evaluating corneal power changes after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-seven eyes of 237 patients that underwent myopic PRK with a refractive error, measured as spherical equivalent, ranging from -10.75 D to -0.5D (mean -4.63 ± 2.21D), were enrolled in this study. Corneal power evaluation using Sirius were performed before, 1, 3 and 6 months after myopic PRK. Mean simulated keratometry (SimK) and mean pupil power (MPP) were measured. Correlations between changes in corneal power, measured with SimK and MPP, and variations in subjective refraction, calculated at corneal plane, were evaluated using Pearson test at every follow up; differences between preoperative and postoperative data were evaluated with the Student paired t-test.

RESULTS

A good correlation has been detected between the variations in subjective refraction measured at corneal plane 1, 3 and 6 months after myopic PRK and both SimK (R(2) = 0.8463; R(2) = 0.8643; R(2) = 0.7102, respectively) and MPP (R(2) = 0.6622; R(2) = 0.5561; R(2) = 0.5522, respectively) but corneal power changes are statistically undervalued for both parameters (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even if our data should be confirmed in further studies, SimK and MPP provided by this new device do not seem to accurately reflect the changes in corneal power after myopic PRK.

Corneal Anterior Power Calculation for an IOL in Post-PRK Patients

PURPOSE

After corneal refractive surgery, there is an overestimation of the corneal power with the devices routinely used to measure it. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether, in patients who underwent photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), it is possible to predict the earlier preoperative anterior corneal power from the postoperative (PO) posterior corneal power. A comparison is made using a formula published by Saiki for laser in situ keratomileusis patients and a new one calculated specifically from PRK patients.

METHODS

The Saiki formula was tested in 98 eyes of 98 patients (47 women) who underwent PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Moreover, anterior and posterior mean keratometry (Km) values from a Scheimpflug camera were measured to obtain a specific regression formula.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) preoperative Km was 43.50 (±1.39) diopters (D) (range, 39.25 to 47.05 D). The mean (±SD) Km value calculated with the Saiki formula using the 6 months PO posterior Km was 42.94 (±1.19) D (range, 40.34 to 45.98 D) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Six months after PRK in our patients, the posterior Km was correlated with the anterior preoperative one by the following regression formula: y = -4.9707x + 12.457 (R² = 0.7656), where x is PO posterior Km and y is preoperative anterior Km, similar to the one calculated by Saiki.

CONCLUSIONS

Care should be taken in using the Saiki formula to calculate the preoperative Km in patients who underwent PRK.

Evaluation of the Pentacam ray tracing method for the measurement of central corneal power after myopic photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

The study evaluated the ray tracing method [total corneal refractive power (TCRP)] in a Pentacam apparatus (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) for postoperative keratometry measurement after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

Manifest refraction (MR) and Pentacam analyses were performed preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively after the PRK (STAR S4 IR CustomVue; Abbott Medical Optics/Visx) in 49 right eyes from 49 patients (age, 25.42 ± 3.51 years). Postoperative corneal power was calculated using the clinical history method (CHM) and compared with postoperatively measured simulated keratometry (simK), true net power (TNP) at 3 mm, and pupil-centered TCRP at the center, 1, 3, and 4 mm (TCRP0, TCRP1, TCRP3, and TCRP4). Vertex-distance-adjusted refractive change (delta-MR) at the corneal plane was also compared with various keratometric changes (delta-K).

RESULTS

Postoperative TCRP0, TCRP1, TCRP3, and TCRP4 showed no significant difference compared with that of the CHM. Postoperative simK was significantly higher than that of the CHM, whereas the TNP was significantly lower compared with that of the CHM. The delta-Ks measured by simK, TNP, and TCRPs were significantly smaller than delta-MR, and delta-TCRP4 showed the least difference [mean ± SD, 0.28 ± 0.55 diopters (D)] with delta-MR. The 95% limit of agreement between delta-MR and delta-TCRP4 was -0.85 to 1.31 D. The difference between delta-TCRP4 and delta-MR was <0.5 D in 55.1% and <1.0 D in 87.8% of the eyes studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Although postoperative TCRPs showed no significant difference with CHM, delta-MR was still underestimated after myopic PRK.

IOL power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To describe the different formulas that try to overcome the problem of calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients that underwent corneal refractive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

A Pubmed literature search review of all published articles, on keyword associated with IOL power calculation and corneal refractive surgery, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 33 peer reviewed articles dealing with methods that try to overcome the problem of calculating the IOL power in patients that underwent CRS were found. According to the information needed to try to overcome this problem, the methods were divided in two main categories: 18 methods were based on the knowledge of the patient clinical history and 15 methods that do not require such knowledge. The first group was further divided into five subgroups based on the parameters needed to make such calculation.

CONCLUSION

In the light of our findings, to avoid postoperative nasty surprises, we suggest using only those methods that have shown good results in a large number of patients, possibly by averaging the results obtained with these methods.