Accuracy and predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after photorefractive keratectomy

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.

Associated factors and distribution of posterior corneal astigmatism in a middle-aged population

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Posterior corneal astigmatism has an important role in diagnosis and treatment of astigmatism, but it is usually overlooked.

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the distribution of posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and its associated factors in a middle-aged population that participated in the Shahroud Eye Cohort Study (ShECS) phase II.

METHODS

Anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) and PCA values were measured using rotating Scheimpflug System (Pentacam HR, Oculus). With-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism was considered when the steepest corneal meridian was aligned within 90° ± 30°, and against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism when the steepest meridian was 0 ± 30°. All the remaining values were considered as oblique astigmatism. Logistic regression models were used for evaluating the association of PCA magnitudes with other factors.

RESULTS

The current study consisted of 3871 eyes with available Pentacam data. Mean age of participants was 55.4 ± 6.1 years and 1557 (40.2%) subjects were male. Means of ACA and PCA were 0.77 ± 0.67 and -0.24 ± 0.15 D, respectively. The majority of PCA consisted of WTR astigmatism (82.43%), while ACA mostly showed ATR astigmatism (55.46%). PCA > 0.3 D was associated with male sex (OR = 1.16, P-value = 0.028) and spherical equivalent (OR = 0.93, P-value = 0.011) in the adjusted model, while PCA > 0.5 dioptre was strongly associated with myopia (OR = 4.6, P-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The most common forms of ACA and PCA in middle-aged Iranian adults were ATR and WTR, respectively. While the shape of posterior corneal surface remained mostly unchanged across ages of 45 to 69 years, ACA was associated with a decrease in ATR proportion. Moreover, the most significant factors associated with higher magnitudes of PCA were male sex and myopia.

A Survey of Intraocular Lens Explantation: A Retrospective Analysis of 23 IOLs Explanted during 2005

Purpose

To evaluate the indications, lens styles, perioperative findings, and results of intraocular lens (IOL) explantation or exchange performed in the authors department in 2005.

Methods

The retrospective analysis comprised 22 patients (23 eyes). Twenty-one eyes had previous phacoemulsification and IOL implantation, one eye secondary aphakic IOL, and one eye phakic IOL implantation. The indications for IOL explantation/exchange and perioperative complications were evaluated. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) before and after surgery was compared.

Results

Time from initial surgery to explantation/exchange varied from 1 to 121 months, median value was 46 months. The IOLs were explanted using local anesthesia and in 21 eyes replaced with new lens. Indications for IOL removal were opacification of the IOL in 12 eyes, malposition of the IOL in 5 eyes, postoperative refractive error in 2 eyes, recurrent toxic anterior segment syndrome in 1 eye, pseudophakic dysphotopsia in 1 eye, endothelial cell loss in phakic anterior chamber IOL in 1 eye, and visual discomfort with intraocular telescopic lens in 1 eye. The mean BCVA (decimal scale) before and after IOL explantation/exchange was 0.562±0.279 and 0.627±0.276, respectively. There was no significant difference in visual acuity before and after IOL exchange (Wilcoxon test).

Conclusions

The most frequent indications for IOL explantation/exchange were opacification of the IOL and IOL malposition. Surgeries were uneventful in most cases. Final visual results have been largely good. Long-term follow-up of patients with various types of IOLs should be maintained.

Effects of error in radius of curvature on the corneal power measurement before and after laser refractive surgery for myopia

PURPOSE

To investigate the sources of error in corneal power measurement before and after corneal refractive surgery for myopia.

METHODS

The study comprised 28 eyes of six males and eight females with a mean age of 26 (range 18-39 years). The radius of curvature of anterior and posterior corneal surface, Q-Values of anterior and posterior corneal surface and corneal central thickness were measured by rotating Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam). The true net power F(g), back vertex power F(v), and keratometric power SimK, were calculated respectively at the apex and at a paracentral area on the 3 mm ring.

RESULTS

For virgin eyes, the overestimation (0.53 ± 0.11 D) of the corneal power by using a keratometric index of 1.3375 was balanced by the underestimation (-0.21 ± 0.09 D) of the corneal power by the error in the radius of curvature, resulting in a relatively small corneal power error with a mean value of 0.33 ± 0.11 D. With the Q-value changing from -0.09 to -0.41, the percentage balanced by the error in radius of curvature increased from 16% to 73%. However, for eyes after laser refractive surgery, the radius of curvature error lead to an overestimation (0.54 ± 0.16 D) of the corneal power and the keratometric index of 1.3375 again overestimated (1.59 ± 0.26 D) the corneal power, resulting in a large measurement error with a mean value of 2.12 ± 0.40 D. With the Q-value changing from 0.35 to 1.89, the percentage added by the error in radius of curvature increased from 14% to 32%.

CONCLUSIONS

For virgin eyes, the overestimation of the corneal power by using a keratometric index of 1.3375 is balanced by the underestimation of the corneal power by the error in the radius of curvature, resulting in a relatively small corneal power error. However, for eyes after laser refractive surgery, the flatter anterior corneal surface means that the use of a keratometric index of 1.3375 significantly overestimates the corneal power and the radius of curvature error now adds to this overestimation and results in a large measurement error.

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Cataract surgery after corneal refractive surgery can be challenging for the ocular surgeon due to the difficulty with accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power determination and unexpected refractive surprises. As clinicians have done more work, a number of error sources have been determined. Furthermore, an increasing number of methods to avoid these refractive surprises have been proposed. The combination of this work has resulted in recommendations for the modification of standard IOL power calculations to improve outcomes. The following article includes a brief on, and by no means, inclusive, error sources and ways to compensate for them.

Use of the pentacam true net corneal power for intraocular lens calculation in eyes after refractive corneal surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy and validity of true net corneal power of the Pentacam system to provide a keratometry reading for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in postoperative refractive surgery eyes.

METHODS

Refraction, an automated keratometry reading, and true net corneal power were measured for 30 eyes that required cataract surgery and had previously undergone refractive surgery. Target refraction values calculated with the SRK/T formula using true net corneal power were compared with postoperative manifest refraction values.

RESULTS

Using true net corneal power, the mean deviation from the desired postoperative cataract refractive outcome was 0.47 +/- 0.56 diopters (D); the actual refraction was within +/- 0.50 D of the intended refraction for 70% of eyes (21/30) and within +/- 1.00 D for 93% of eyes (28/30).

CONCLUSIONS

The true net corneal power can be used as a keratometry reading for eyes with previous refractive surgery requiring cataract surgery.

Accuracy of corneal astigmatism estimation by neglecting the posterior corneal surface measurement

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of corneal astigmatism estimation by neglecting the posterior corneal surface measurement.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

METHODS

The right eyes of 493 subjects were measured with a rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam; Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). The keratometric corneal astigmatism (KA) was obtained by using the anterior corneal surface measurement and the keratometric index (1.3375) while neglecting the posterior corneal surface measurement. The Pentacam-derived total corneal astigmatism (PA) was derived by doubled-angle vector analysis of the astigmatisms on both corneal surfaces.

RESULTS

The mean arithmetic and absolute estimation errors of the KA magnitude for the PA magnitude were -0.06 +/- 0.28 diopters (D) (range, -0.59 to 0.91 D) and 0.24 +/- 0.16 D (range, 0 to 0.91 D), respectively. The mean arithmetic and absolute estimation errors of the KA angle for the PA angle were -0.6 degrees +/- 12.7 degrees (range, -69.9 degrees to 83.4 degrees) and 7.4 degrees +/- 10.3 degrees (range, 0 degrees to 83.4 degrees), respectively. Among all eyes, 142 eyes (28.8%) had either a KA magnitude that differed by > 0.50 D from the PA magnitude or a KA angle that differed by > 10 degrees from the PA angle. For the 282 eyes with a KA magnitude exceeding 1.0 D (that are candidates for intraoperative correction of a preexisting astigmatism during cataract surgery), 29 eyes (10.3%) had either a KA magnitude that differed by > 0.50 D from the PA magnitude or a KA angle that differed by > 10 degrees from the PA angle.

CONCLUSIONS

Neglecting the posterior corneal surface measurement may lead to significant deviation in the corneal astigmatism estimation in a proportion of eyes.

The comparison of central and mean true-net power (Pentacam) in calculating IOL-power after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of central true net corneal power (cTNP) and mean true net corneal power (mTNP) of the Pentacam system to give a keratometry (K) reading for calculating IOL (intraocular lens) power in eyes following refractive surgery.

METHODS

Refraction, an automated K-reading (Km), cTNP and mTNP were measured for 15 eyes that required cataract surgery and had previously undergone refractive surgery. The difference between postoperative manifest refraction values and target refraction values calculated with the SRK/T formula using cTNP were compared with the one using mTNP.

RESULTS

The mean deviation from the desired post-cataract refractive outcome was 0.60 diopter (D)+/-0.47 (standard deviation) using cTNP; 0.75+/-0.54 using mTNP (p=0.386). The actual refraction was within +/-0.50D of the intended refraction for 60% (cTNP) and 33.3% (mTNP) of eyes, and within +/-1.00D for 93% (cTNP) and 66.7% (mTNP) of eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not statistically significant, the cTNP showed better accuracy than mTNP to give a keratometry (K) reading for post-refractive surgery eyes requiring cataract surgery.

Intraocular lens power calculation after automated lamellar keratoplasty for high myopia

PURPOSE

To report intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in 2 eyes that were highly undercorrected by previous myopic automated lamellar keratoplasty (ALK).

METHODS

A 35-year-old man underwent bilateral myopic ALK, which caused high residual myopia (-9.0 -4.0 x 171 and -9.5 -4.5 x 74). The patient then underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation for cataract development. The double-K clinical history method was utilized, and satisfactory IOL power prediction results were obtained. Two no-history IOL power calculation methods (Rosa correcting factor method and Ferrara theoretical variable refractive index method), which involved axial length-dependent modification of the keratometer-measured corneal radius, and 1 no-history IOL power calculation method (Shammas' method), which involved axial length-independent modification of the keratometer-measured corneal power, were tested on these 2 eyes.

RESULTS

In both eyes, the double-K SRK-T clinical history method gave small IOL prediction errors (-0.66 and -0.81 D). The Shammas' no-history method gave a slightly higher IOL prediction error in the right eye (-1.67 D) and a small IOL prediction error in the left eye (-0.74 D). Unacceptable IOL power prediction errors would have resulted if Rosa's correcting factor method (-8.07 and -8.35 D) or Ferrara's theoretical variable refractive index method (-17.56 and -18.51 D) had been applied. When we utilized Rosa's method for the IOL power calculation by assuming that the previous ALK had fully corrected the refractive error, the predicted IOL powers were very close to the benchmark IOL powers (IOL power prediction errors: 1.16 and 0.37 D). When we utilized Ferrara's method with the same assumption, the IOL power prediction errors remained high (-6.32 and -7.16 D).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who have had previous myopic ALK (and whose eyes are highly undercorrected) and who require cataract surgery and for whom the pre-ALK history is available, the double-K method appears to yield excellent predictive results. However, if the pre-ALK history is not available, the Shammas' no-history method appears to yield better results than the Rosa's or the Ferrara's method. High undercorrection by the previous ALK might have been one of the major reasons why Rosa's method resulted in a high IOL prediction error in these 2 eyes. The cause for the marked IOL prediction error by Ferrara's method in this case, however, remains to be determined.

Accuracy of Orbscan II in the Assessment of Posterior Curvature in Patients With Myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of Orbscan II measurements in assessing posterior corneal curvature in patients undergoing myopic LASIK.

METHODS

Using the Orbscan II, posterior corneal curvature was assessed pre- and postoperatively in 304 eyes that underwent myopic LASIK. The radius of curvature and corneal refractive power in diopters (D) were compared using the paired sample t test.

RESULTS

The mean pre- and postoperative radius of posterior corneal curvature were 6.49 +/- 0.26 mm and 6.35 +/- 0.30 mm, respectively. Mean pre- and postoperative posterior corneal power were -6.17 +/- 0.25 D and -6.32 +/- 0.30 D, respectively, and the difference (0.14 +/- 0.14 D) was statistically significant (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the derived value for the power of the postoperative LASIK posterior corneal surface is overestimated using the Orbscan II, this small difference may not be clinically important. Orbscan II measurements can therefore be used (with caution) to measure posterior corneal curvature in patients with myopic LASIK for the assessment of intraocular lens power based on the Gaussian optics formula.

Calculating Intraocular Lens Geometry by Real Ray Tracing

PURPOSE

An implementation of real ray tracing based on Snell's law is tested by predicting the refraction of pseudophakic eyes and calculating the geometry of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

The refraction of 30 pseudophakic eyes was predicted with the measured corneal topography, axial length, and the known IOL geometry and compared to the manifest refraction. Intraocular lens calculation was performed for 30 normal eyes and 12 eyes that had previous refractive surgery for myopia correction and compared to state-of-the-art IOL calculation formulae.

RESULTS

Mean difference between predicted and manifest refraction for a 2.5-mm pupil were sphere 0.11 +/- 0.43 diopters (D), cylinder -0.18 +/- 0.52 D, and axis 5.13 degrees +/- 30.19 degrees. Pearson's correlation coefficient was sphere r = 0.92, P < .01; cylinder r = 0.79, P < .01; and axis r = 0.91, P < .01. Intraocular lens calculation for the normal group showed that the mean absolute error regarding refractive outcome is largest for SRK II (0.49 D); all other formulae including ray tracing result in similar values ranging from 0.36 to 0.40 D. Intraocular lens calculation for the refractive group showed that depending on pupil size (3.5 to 2.5 mm), ray tracing delivers values 0.95 to 1.90 D higher compared to the average of Holladay 1, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulae.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that ray tracing can compete with state-of-the-art IOL calculation formulae for normal eyes. For eyes with previous refractive surgery, IOL powers obtained by ray tracing are significantly higher than those from the other formulae. Thus, a hyperopic shift may be avoided using ray tracing even without clinical history.

Measuring total corneal power before and after laser in situ keratomileusis with high-speed optical coherence tomography

PURPOSE

To measure total corneal power using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

SETTING

Refractive surgery practices at 2 academic eye centers in Cleveland, Ohio, and Los Angeles, California, USA.

METHODS

Thirty-two eyes of 17 patients having myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) were enrolled in a prospective observational study. Manifest refraction, OCT, and Placido ring corneal topography with the Atlas 995 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc.) were performed preoperatively and 3 months after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). A high-speed (2000 axial scans/second) corneal and anterior segment OCT prototype was used. The total corneal power was calculated by summation of the anterior and posterior surface powers, and the value was compared with that determined by simulated keratometry. Two methods of measuring total corneal power were tested: the direct method, which used OCT to measure both corneal surfaces directly, and the hybrid method, which combined OCT with anterior corneal topography.

RESULTS

The repeatability (pooled standard deviation) of measuring total corneal power using the hybrid method was 3 times better than that using the direct method. It was 0.23 diopter (D) before LASIK and 0.26 D after LASIK. Preoperative total power was 1.13 D (2.6%) lower than the simulated keratometry. Compared to the LASIK-induced change in spherical equivalent refraction, the change in total corneal power was equivalent, while the change in simulated keratometry power was significantly smaller (-18.8%) (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Keratometry using the traditional index of 1.3375 overestimated the total power in preoperative corneas and underestimated LASIK-induced refractive change. Measuring both corneal surfaces using a combination of OCT and Placido ring topography provided a better measure of total corneal power that closely tracked the refractive change in post-LASIK eyes.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Myopic Refractive Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability of different methods developed to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power after corneal refractive surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Preoperative and postoperative data of all eyes that underwent myopic excimer laser surgery in a private practice (Centro Salus, Bologna, Italy) between 1999 and 2004 were reviewed.

INTERVENTION

The following methods were analyzed: videokeratography, clinical history, Shammas' refraction-derived and clinically derived methods, Rosa's correcting factor, Ferrara's variable refractive index, separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), Feiz-Mannis' formula and nomogram, and Latkany's regression formulas (based on both average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry). The Holladay 1 formula was used for eyes with an axial length between 22 and 24.49 mm and the SRK-T for eyes longer than 24.49 mm. Double-K formulas were also evaluated, when applicable. Each IOL power determined with these methods was compared to a benchmark value, calculated using the preoperative axial length and corneal power and aiming for the preoperative spherical equivalent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean error in IOL power prediction.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight eyes of 98 patients were analyzed. The double-K clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis' formula, double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), and both Latkany's regression formulas were the only methods resulting in a mean IOL power not statistically different (P>0.05) from the benchmark used for comparative purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

When prerefractive surgery data are available, IOL power should be calculated using the double-K clinical history method. Alternative choices may be represented by the Feiz-Mannis' formula, Latkany's regression formulas based on average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry, and the double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvatures. A variant of the latter can be used to calculate IOL power when prerefractive surgery data are not available. Further prospective studies based on patients undergoing phacoemulsification after refractive surgery are needed to validate the results of this theoretical comparison.

Intraocular lens power calculation using ray tracing following excimer laser surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using ray tracing in patients presenting with cataract after excimer laser surgery.

METHODS

Ten eyes of seven consecutive patients who presented for cataract surgery following excimer laser treatment without any pre-refractive biometry data were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. Preoperatively, IOL power calculation was performed using a ray tracing software called OKULIX. Keratometry data (C-Scan) were imported and axial length (IOLMaster) was entered manually. Accuracy of IOL power calculation was investigated by subtracting attempted and achieved spherical equivalent.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was -3.51+/-2.77 D (range -10.38 to -0.5 D) preoperatively and -1.01+/-1.08 D (range -2.5 to +0.75 D) postoperatively. Mean error was 0.31+/-0.84 D, mean absolute error was 0.74+/-0.46 D, and IOL calculation errors ranged from -1.39 to +1.47 D. A total of 40% of eyes were within +/-0.5 D, 70% within +/-1.0 D, and 100% within +/-1.5 D. Three eyes with corneal radii over 10 mm showed calculation errors exceeding +/-1.0 D. Mean best-corrected visual acuity increased from 20/60 to 20/30 postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

IOL power calculation after excimer laser surgery can be difficult, especially when pre-refractive keratometry values are not available. In these cases, ray tracing combined with corneal topography measurements provides reliable and satisfactory postoperative results. However, it is advisable to be careful when calculating IOL power for eyes with corneal radii exceeding 10 mm because of slightly higher prediction errors.

A New Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Refractive Corneal Surgery

PURPOSE

When calculating the power of an intraocular lens (IOL) with conventional methods in eyes that have previously undergone refractive surgery, in most cases the power is inaccurate. To minimize these errors, a new IOL power calculation formula was developed.

METHODS

A theoretical formula empirically adjusted two variables: 1) the corneal power and 2) the anterior chamber depth (ACD). From the average curvature of the entrance pupil area, weighted according to the Stiles-Crawford effect, the corneal power is calculated by using a relative keratometric index that is a function of the actual corneal curvature, type of keratorefractive surgery, and induced refractive change. Anterior chamber depth is a function of the preoperative ACD, lens thickness, axial length, and the ACD constant. We used our formula in 20 eyes that previously underwent refractive surgery (photorefractive keratectomy [n = 6], laser subepithelial keratomileusis [n = 3], laser in situ keratomileusis [n = 6], and radial keratotomy [n = 5]) and compared our results to other formulas.

RESULTS

Mean postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was +0.26 diopters (D) (standard deviation [SD] 0.73, range: -1.25 to +/- 1.58 D) using our formula, +2.76 D (SD 1.03, range: +0.94 to +4.47 D) using the SRK II, +1.44 D (SD 0.97, range: +0.05 to +4.01 D) with Binkhorst, 1.83 D (SD 1.00, range: -0.26 to +4.21 D) with Holladay I, and -2.04 D (SD 2.19, range: -7.29 to +1.62 D) with Rosa's method. With our formula, 60% of absolute refractive prediction errors were within 0.50 D, 80% within 1.00 D, and 93% within 1.50 D.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first series of patients, we obtained encouraging results. With a greater number of cases, all statistical adjustments related to the different types of surgery should be improved.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Following LASIK: Determination of the New Effective Index of Refraction

PURPOSE

To determine the new corneal effective index of refraction (rN) following LASIK to be used for accurate keratometry reading (K-reading).

METHODS

A total of 332 eyes that underwent myopic LASIK were divided into two groups (group A [n = 137] and group B [n = 1951). In each group, patients were divided into four subgroups according to the amount of spherical equivalent refraction of myopic LASIK ablation (subgroup 1 [< -4.0 D], subgroup 2 [-4.0 to < -8.0 D], subgroup 3 [-8.0 to -12.0 D], and subgroup 4 [> -12.0 D]). In each subgroup of group A, K-reading was measured by the clinical history method and the new corneal effective index (rN) was determined using paraxial formula: (K-reading = (rN-1)/Ra), where Ra is the radius of curvature of the anterior corneal surface. In group B, the anterior radius of curvature of the cornea was determined by automated K-reading, and K-reading was measured in each subgroup using the new effective index in paraxial formula, clinical history method, and automated K-reading.

RESULTS

In group A, the new effective index of refraction was 1.3355, 1.3286, 1.3237, and 1.3172 in the four subgroups, respectively. In group B, the mean K-reading measurements using rN in paraxial formula, clinical history method, and automated K-reading were: 40.33 +/- 1.68 D, 40.33 +/- 1.67 D, and 40.54 +/- 1.69 D, respectively, in subgroup 1; 37.96 +/- 1.26 D, 38.03 +/- 1.38 D, and 38.98 +/- 1.28 D, respectively, in subgroup 2; 35.77 +/- 1.75 D, 35.84 +/- 1.85 D, and 37.29 +/- 1.83 D, respectively, in subgroup 3; and 34.03 +/- 1.49 D, 34.15 +/- 1.84 D, and 36.21 +/- 1.59 D, respectively, in subgroup 4. In all subgroups of group B, the results of K-reading obtained using the new effective index of refraction were statistically similar to the results obtained by clinical history method (P > .05). Automated K-reading statistically overestimated the K-reading values in subgroups 2, 3, and 4 of group B (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the new corneal effective index of refraction allows for an accurate derivation of K-reading from the anterior radius of curvature.

Nomogram-Based Intraocular Lens Power Adjustment after Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy and LASIK

PURPOSE

(1) To evaluate the accuracy of nomogram-based adjustment of intraocular lens (IOL) power to achieve a desired refractive target after cataract surgery in postmyopic LASIK and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) eyes and (2) to compare the accuracy of the nomogram-based method with the clinical history method.

DESIGN

Multicenter, retrospective, interventional, noncomparative case series.

SUBJECTS

Fourteen patients (19 eyes) after myopic LASIK or PRK with visually significant cataracts.

INTERVENTION

All eyes underwent cataract extraction and posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. In each case, IOL power was determined with standard keratometry and biometry. Power adjustment was made by use of a theoretical nomogram followed by implantation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Final refraction and spherical equivalent after cataract surgery and (2) deviation of the final spherical equivalent from the refractive target.

RESULTS

After cataract extraction, by use of nomogram adjustment, 63.2% of eyes were within 0.5 D of the intended spherical equivalent, 84.2% were within 1.0 diopter of the intended spherical equivalent, and 100% were within 1.5 D of the intended spherical equivalent. The clinical history method was accurate in predicting the correct IOL power in 37.5% of cases, regardless of whether spectacle or corneal plane refraction was used.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Given the change in spherical equivalent induced by myopic LASIK/PRK, IOL power can be adjusted accurately to avoid undercorrection without the need for the prerefractive surgery corneal power. (2) The nomogram-based method was more accurate than the clinical history method.

Topography-based intraocular lens power selection

PURPOSE

To provide mathematical tools for selecting intraocular lens (IOL) power for normal eyes and for "odd" eyes, particularly after corneal refractive surgery.

SETTING

Universitats-Augenklinik, Mainz, Germany.

METHODS

First, IOL power is selected based on the radii and numerical eccentricity of the cornea, extracted from corneal topography in a consistent numerical model of the cornea. To fine-tune the result, the visual impression is simulated by blurred Landolt rings superimposed on the retinal receptor grid. The calculation uses numerical ray tracing of the whole pseudophakic eye comprising all monochromatic errors. The error contributions of the influencing parameters, such as anterior and posterior corneal shape and corneal thickness, are quantified in detail. The method is verified in IOL power selection for normal eyes and for eyes after corneal refractive surgery.

RESULTS

The main difference between normal corneas and corneas after refractive surgery results from different asphericities. Normal corneas are prolate, with typical numerical eccentricities of 0.5, whereas corneas after laser surgery for myopia are oblate. This causes the main difference (hyperopic shift up to 2.0 diopters) in IOL power selection. Shifts in the posterior corneal radius and corneal thickness are of minor importance.

CONCLUSION

Intraocular power selection after corneal refractive surgery should be based on all the information corneal topography provides.

Reliability of a new correcting factor in calculating intraocular lens power after refractive corneal surgery

PURPOSE

To test the reliability of a corneal radius correcting factor (R factor) in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes that developed cataract after refractive surgery and compare it with the clinical history (CHM) and double-K (DKM) methods.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.

METHODS

Nineteen eyes from the literature that underwent cataract extraction and IOL implantation after refractive surgery were used to compare actual postoperative and expected refractive errors utilizing the R factor, CHM, and DKM. Intraocular lens powers were calculated with 3 formulas: SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1. The differences were evaluated with the Wilcoxon test and Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

With the R factor SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas gave the best results; 16 (84.2%) and 17 (89.5%) eyes were within +/-2 diopters (D) of emmetropia. With CHM, the best results were obtained using the SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas; with both formulas 12 (63.2%) eyes were within +/-2 D of emmetropia. With DKM, the best results were obtained using SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas; with both formulas 10 eyes (52.63%) were in the range of +/-2 D from emmetropia.

CONCLUSIONS

The R factor can be used with the SRK/T or Holladay 1 formula because this method seems comparable or superior to DKM and CHM.

Intraocular lens calculations after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of refractive surgery on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation, compare methods of IOL power calculation after refractive surgery, evaluate the effect of pre-refractive surgery refractive error on IOL deviation, review the literature on determining IOL power after refractive surgery, and introduce a formula for IOL calculation for use after refractive surgery for myopia.

SETTING

Laser & Corneal Surgery Associates and Center for Ocular Tear Film Disorders, New York, New York, USA.

METHODS

This retrospective noncomparative case series comprised 21 patients who had uneventful cataract extraction and IOL implantation after previous uneventful myopic refractive surgery. Six methods of IOL calculation were used: clinical history (IOL(HisK)), clinical history at the spectacle plane (IOL(HisKs)), vertex (IOL(vertex)), back-calculated (IOL(BC)), calculation based on average keratometry (IOL(avgK)), and calculation based on flattest keratometry (IOL(flatK)). Each method result was compared to an "exact" IOL (IOL(exact)) that would have resulted in emmetropia and then compared to the pre-refractive surgery manifest refraction using linear regression. The paired t test was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

The IOL(HisKs) was the most accurate method for IOL calculations, with a mean deviation from emmetropia of -0.56 diopter +/-1.59 (D), followed by the IOL(BC) (+1.06 +/- 1.51 D), IOL(vertex) (+1.51 +/- 1.95 D), IOL(flatK) (-1.72 +/- 2.19 D), IOL(HisK) (-1.76 +/- 1.76 D), and IOL(avgK) (-2.32 +/- 2.36 D). There was no statistical difference between IOL(HisKs) and IOL(exact) in myopic eyes. The power of IOL(flatK) would be inaccurate by -(0.47x+0.85), where x is the pre-refractive surgery myopic SE (SEQ(m)). Thus, without adjusting IOL(flatK), most patients would be left hyperopic. However, when IOL(flatK) is adjusted with this formula, it would not be statistically different from IOL(exact).

CONCLUSIONS

For IOL power selection in previously myopic patients, a predictive formula to calculate IOL power based only on the pre-refractive surgery SEQ(m) and current flattest keratometry readings was not statistically different from IOL(exact). The IOL(HisKs), which was also not statistically different from IOL(exact), requires pre-refractive surgery keratometry readings that are often not available to the cataract surgeon.

New formula for calculating intraocular lens power after laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To assess the validity and accuracy of a proposed formula for keratometry (K) readings after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

SETTING

The Eye Center and the Eye Foundation for Research, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This studied comprised 34 eyes that had LASIK surgery. Refraction and an automated K-reading (auto-K) were performed preoperatively. Refraction, auto-K, and K-reading assessment by the clinical history method and the proposed formula were performed 4 to 12 weeks postoperatively. The proposed formula is K(postop) = K(preop) - [(N(c) - 1) x (R(a-postop) - R(a-preop))/(R(a-postop) x R(a-preop))], where K(postop) is the K-reading after LASIK, K(preop) is the K-reading before LASIK, N(c) is the index of refraction of the cornea (1.376), R(a-postop) is the radius of curvature of the anterior corneal surface after LASIK, and R(a-preop) is the radius of curvature of the anterior corneal surface before LASIK.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (10 men, 10 women) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 30.58 years +/- 17.68 (SD) (range 18 to 44 years). Preoperatively, the mean spherical equivalent (SE) was -4.99 +/- 2.82 diopters (D) (range -1.12 to -15.00 D), the mean R(a) was 7.76 +/- 0.32 mm (range 7.33 to 8.50 mm), and the mean auto-K reading was 43.45 +/- 1.73 D (range 39.62 to 46.00 D). Postoperatively, the mean SE was +0.02 +/- 0.63 D (range -2.75 to +1.00 D), the mean R(a) was 8.63 +/- 0.53 mm (range 7.80 to 9.92 mm), and the mean K-reading assessed by auto-K, clinical history method, and the proposed formula was 39.17 +/- 2.35 D (range 34.00 to 43.25 D), 38.79 +/- 2.52 D (range 33.1 to 42.78 D), and 38.69 +/- 2.51 D (range 33.1 to 43.0 D), respectively. The results obtained by the proposed formula were similar to those obtained by the clinical history method (P =.098). Auto-K readings significantly overestimated the K-values (P<.0001) when compared to the proposed formula and clinical history method.

CONCLUSION

The proposed formula was simple, objective, not dependent on refraction, and as accurate as the clinical history method in determining K-readings after LASIK.

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Keratorefractive procedures designed to decrease refractive errors have gained enormous popularity among ophthalmologists and patients. As the post-refractive surgery patient population ages, visually significant cataracts will develop. With advances in techniques for cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation, cataract surgery has evolved into a refractive surgical procedure as well as an operation to improve best corrected visual acuity. This raises expectations in terms of desired postoperative refractive status and uncorrected visual acuity. Although performing modern cataract surgery in post-refractive surgery eyes is technically no more complicated than operating on virgin eyes, the calculation of intraocular lens power for a desired refractive target can be challenging and complicated. This has become increasingly apparent as case reports of "refractive surprises" after cataract surgery appear in the literature more frequently.

RECENT FINDINGS

This paper reviews the current clinical experience with intraocular lens power determination after cataract surgery in post-keratorefractive patients, provides an overview of possible sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation in these patients, and analyzes methods to minimize intraocular lens power errors.

SUMMARY

The clinical and routine methods of intraocular lens power determination after keratorefractive surgery need to be modified to improve accuracy. Our knowledge of this subject is still evolving. Given the enormous impact of this problem on clinical practice, awareness of the shortcomings and suggested methods to improve accuracy can be valuable to clinicians.

Reliability of the IOLMaster in measuring corneal power changes after photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

To test the accuracy of the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss) in detecting corneal power changes after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, 2nd University of Naples, Naples, Italy.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-five consecutive eyes that had PRK (mean -5.13 diopters [D] +/- 2.98 [SD] [range +0.25 to -16.25 D]) were analyzed. The data included preoperative and postoperative (1, 3, and 6 months) subjective refraction and computerized keratometry. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the correlation between the changes in the subjective refraction at the corneal plane and the changes in keratometry.

RESULTS

The mean difference between the changes in refraction and the measured corneal changes was 0.75 +/- 1.13 D (range -3.84 to +7.68 D) at 1 month, 0.92 +/- 1.10 D (range -0.87 to +7.93 D) at 3 months, and 0.75 +/- 0.98 D (range -1.70 to +3.85 D) at 6 months. The difference was significant (P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Automated keratometry provided by the IOLMaster did not accurately reflect the effective refractive changes after PRK, particularly in eyes that had a high dioptric treatment.

New Formula to Calculate Corneal Power After Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the validity of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations utilizing a theoretical variable refractive index correlated to axial length after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in a clinical simulation and in patients who underwent cataract surgery after PRK for myopia.

METHODS

Our study included 374 eyes of 300 patients who had PRK for myopia (-2.00 to -12.00 D, mean -4.83 +/- 2.57 D), divided into three groups: Group I had 44 eyes with small ablation zones of 5 to 5.5 mm; Group II had 49 eyes with large ablation zones of 6 to 7 mm; Group III was the control group of 281 eyes (201 patients; 87 males and 114 females) with small and large ablation zones. PRK was performed using the Aesculap-Meditec MEL 60/94 and MEL 70 lasers, and the corneal power was acquired by corneal topography (EyeSys 2000) and a Nidek KM-800 keratometer.

RESULTS

There was a higher correlation between corneal power and both the change in refraction and axial length when calculated using keratometric measurements. IOL power calculated using keratometric postoperative PRK power was underestimated. The difference between the mean calculated and actual IOL power for emmetropia was 4.30 +/- 2.34 D. A theoretical variable refractive index (obtained from eyes treated with large PRK ablation zones) that correlated with axial length provided the correct keratometric postoperative PRK power: difference between mean calculated and mean actual IOL power was 0.42 +/- 1.23 D.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a theoretical variable refractive index that is correlated to axial length. Utilizing this keratometric correct power, we calculated IOL power similar to that for emmetropia.

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery: Double-K method

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of a method of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after corneal refractive surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Gipuzkoa, San Sebastián, Spain.

METHODS

The SRK/T formula was modified to use the pre refractive surgery K-value (Kpre) for the effective lens position (ELP) calculation and the post refractive surgery K-value (Kpost) for IOL power calculation by the vergence formula. The Kpre value was obtained by keratometry or topography and the Kpost, by the clinical history method. The formula was assessed in 9 cases of cataract surgery after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in which all relevant data were available. Refractive results of the standard SRK/T and the double-K SRK/T were compared statistically.

RESULTS

The mean IOL power for emmetropia and the achieved refraction (mean spherical equivalent [SE]), respectively, were +17.85 diopters (D) +/- 3.43 (SD) and +1.82 +/- 0.73 with the standard SRK/T and +20.25 +/- 3.55 D and +0.13 +/- 0.62 D with the double-K SRK/T. No case in the standard SRK/T group and 6 cases (66.66%) in the double-K group achieved a +/-0.5 D SE.

CONCLUSION

Double-K modification of the SRK/T formula improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation after LASIK and PRK.

Intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To analyze the results of phacoemulsification cataract surgery in eyes that had had refractive surgery and to compare the predictability of various methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

SETTING

Instituto de la Visión, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

METHODS

The study involved 7 cases that had phacoemulsification after radial keratotomy or laser in situ keratomileusis. The spherical equivalent (SE) and visual acuity were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the changes before cataract development. The IOL power calculated with conventional keratometry (CK), adjusted keratometry, the clinical history method (CHM), corneal topography (CT), and the contact lens method (CLM) was compared with the final refractive and keratometric results measured with the BackCalcs (Holladay(R) IOL Consultant Program, Holladay Consulting, Inc.) to assess the accuracy and predictability of each method.

RESULTS

The mean SE was -4.82 diopters (D) +/- 5.13 (SD) before phacoemulsification and +0.19 +/- 1.01 D after phacoemulsification, and the mean best corrected visual acuity was 0.39 +/- 0.07 (20/50) and 0.80 +/- 0.06 (20/25), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-phacoemulsification refraction in cases with previous refractive surgery appeared to be predictable when the appropriate calculation method was applied. When all the data were available, the CHM provided the best results. Adjusted keratometry and CT seemed to be more accurate than CK and the CLM.

Corneal power after refractive surgery for myopia: contact lens method

PURPOSE

To clarify the theoretical background of the rigid contact lens overrefraction (CLO) method to determine corneal power after corneal refractive surgery.

SETTING

University Eye Clinic, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

METHODS

Using paraxial geometrical optics, the measurement situation for the contact lens method was analyzed and the definitions of corneal refractive power were reviewed. Based on the theoretical Gullstrand eye, model eyes were constructed, representing 1 emmetropic and 2 myopic eyes (primary refraction -5.21 diopters [D] and -10.25 D, respectively) before and after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. In these eyes, the application of the CLO was mathematically simulated using Gaussian thick-lens optics and commercial ray-tracing software.

RESULTS

The CLO method measured neither the equivalent (total) power nor the vertex (back) power of the cornea but rather the quantity 336/R(1C) (R(1C) = anterior corneal radius). Based on these results and the Gullstrand eye, new formulas are proposed to derive the equivalent power and vertex power of the cornea by the CLO method.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on whether intraocular lens calculation formulas are based on equivalent (total) corneal power or vertex corneal power, the respective new formulas for the CLO method should be applied in patients after corneal refractive surgery. An increase in prediction accuracy of the refractive outcome is expected.

Optical biometry before and after excimer laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) for myopia

PURPOSE

In order to select the correct intraocular lens (IOL) for implantation, it is important to measure the eye length (biometry). The IOL Master from Zeiss-Humphry is frequently used for such measurements. Because this instrument employs an optical method, any irregularities on the corneal surface or any disturbances in corneal transparency could lead to mistakes in the measurements. The aim of this study was to determine whether eye length measurements obtained at the University Eye Clinic Regensburg, Germany with the IOL Master before and after excimer laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) show any changes.

METHODS

Axial length was measured on 20 myopic eyes (-2.75 to -8.00 diopters) before and one month after LASEK using the IOL Master.

RESULTS

The mean pre-operative eye length was 25.46 mm (SD +/- 1.03) and the post-operative mean length was 25.38 mm (SD +/- 0.99). There was a strong correlation between the pre- and post-operative eye lengths (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.998).

CONCLUSIONS

Although LASEK can lead to increased light scattering due to irregularities of the corneal surface and changes in corneal transparency, there is no difference in biometry pre- and post-operatively.

Cataract surgery in patients with prior refractive surgery

As the number and types of keratorefractive procedures increase and as the baby boomer population moves into the "cataractous decades," the number of patients requiring cataract surgery following refractive surgery grows larger each year. While technological advances in surgical instrumentation and intraocular lens (IOL) design allow us to perform cleaner, faster, and more reliable cataract extractions, the ultimate postoperative refraction depends primarily on calculations performed before surgery. Third-generation IOL formulas ( Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, or SRK/T) provide outstanding accuracy when used for eyes with physiologic, prolate corneas. In addition, most instruments used today for measuring corneal curvature and power were designed before the era of refractive surgery. These formulas and instruments make assumptions about the anatomy and refractive properties of the cornea that are no longer valid following most keratorefractive procedures. These breakdowns in IOL calculation often result in a "refractive surprise" after cataract surgery, which may require subsequent surgical correction. This article examines recent publications of modeling studies of various methods for estimating effective K values for IOL calculation, cataract surgery case series following refractive surgery, new corneal topography technologies and methods for correcting "refractive surprises" postoperatively.

[Pitfalls of IOL power prediction after photorefractive keratectomy for high myopia -- case report, practical recommendations and literature review]

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Published experience with eyes after keratorefractive correction of myopia indicates that insertion of the average keratometric readings into standard IOL power predictive formulas will frequently result in substantial undercorrection and postoperative hyperopic refraction or anisometropia after cataract surgery depending on the amount of myopia corrected previously. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the accentuated differences of various approaches to minimize IOL power miscalculations by describing a case report of a patient with excessive myopia as well as a review of the literature.

PATIENT AND METHODS

A 50-year old lady presented for cataract surgery on her left eye after having PRK seven years ago elsewhere (refraction - 25.5 - 3.0/20 degrees, central keratometric power 43.0 diopters [D]). Central power before cataract extraction was measured to be 35.5 D (Zeiss Keratometer) and 36.5 D (TMS-1 topography analysis) and refraction was - 3.0 D (before onset of index myopia). Orbscan slit scanning topography analysis displayed an anterior surface power of 36.8 D and a posterior surface power of - 9.3 D. Total axial length was 31.93 mm (optical biometry using Zeiss IOL-Master). The contralateral eye after PRK suffering from a comparable excessive myopia had required an exchange of the IOL implant because of intolerable anisohyperopia of + 6.0 D after primary cataract extraction elsewhere.

RESULTS

Corrected corneal power values for the left eye were calculated as follows: (1) spherical equivalent (SEQ) change at spectacle plane 19.0 D, (2) SEQ change at corneal plane 26.2 D, (3) separate consideration of anterior and posterior curvature 27.5 D, (4) consideration of the IOL power misprediction on the fellow eye 29.5 D, (5) subtraction of 24 % of the SEQ change at the spectacle plane from the actually measured keratometry value 29.7 D, (6) clinical estimate from regression analysis performed earlier 30.5 D, (7) change of anterior surface power 34.5 D. Deciding for a presumably "real" corneal power of 28.0 D the Haigis formula was used to aim for - 2.0 D since the patient preferred to read uncorrected. Thus, a 21.0 D IOL was implanted uneventfully in the capsular bag. The stable refraction postoperatively was - 3.5 - 1.0/20 degrees and visual acuity increased to 20/30. Therefore, the "real" power of that cornea must have been around 30 D.

CONCLUSIONS

After corneal refractive surgery, various techniques to determine the current corneal power should be compared and the value around which results tend to cluster should be relied on to avoid hyperopia after cataract surgery with lens implantation. In those cases where keratometry and refraction before PRK/LASIK are available, the gold standard is still to subtract the change of the SEQ at the corneal plane from the preoperative central keratometric power, although in the present case report the subtraction of 24 % of the SEQ change at the spectacle plane from the measured corneal power value seemed to produce the best result. Pure subtraction of the SEQ change at the spectacle plane from the corneal power value before refractive surgery has to be avoided in eyes with excessive myopia. The most reliable corrected power value should be inserted in more than one modern third-generation formula (such as Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, SRK/T) and the highest power IOL should be implanted. In all instances, the cataract surgeon has to make sure that the corrected K-reading is not wrongly re-converted within the IOL power calculation formula used.

A New Method of Calculating Intraocular Lens Power After Photorefractive Keratectomy

PURPOSE

To find a method of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power that may be independent of preoperative data, in eyes that have developed a cataract after refractive surgery.

METHODS

Prior to and 1 month after PRK, the SRK/T formula was used to calculate IOL power in 88 eyes of 65 patients with a preoperative spherical equivalent refraction between -16.25 to +0.25 D (mean -5.39 +/- 3.19 D). IOL power was calculated by utilizing the spherical equivalent refraction as target both before and after PRK. Utilizing the postoperative corneal radius measurement (R2), an underestimation of the IOL power was found. For this reason, the mean postoperative corneal radius (R3) that gave the same IOL power found before surgery was calculated for each patient. The R3/R2 ratios were plotted against the axial eye length and a linear regression formula was used to calculate R2 correcting factors that gave the new corneal radius (R4). Patients were divided into classes according to axial eye length, and the mean R3/R2 ratios for each class were calculated and used to recalculate the new mean radius (R5). IOL power for emmetropia was calculated in all patients by utilization of R3, R4, R5, the historical method, and the "true corneal power" method.

RESULTS

Within +/-0.50 D from the IOL power calculated with R3, R4 gave 35 (39.3%) IOLs, while R5 gave 40 (45.5%) IOLs; the clinical history method gave 24 (27.3%) IOLs and "true corneal power" gave 23 (26.1%) IOLs, with a statistically significant difference P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our theoretical method, based on correlation between axial eye length and corneal radius correcting factors, may represent an effective method of calculating IOL power after PRK, especially if the history of the patient is unknown.

Intraocular lens power calculations after laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of several techniques for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

METHODS

Retrospective review of 10 eyes from nine patients undergoing phacoemulsification after LASIK. Corneal power (K) was measured by manual keratometry (MK), refractive history (RH), contact lens overrefraction (CTL), videokeratography (VK), and an average of the refractive history and contact lens methods (AVG 2). Results were compared with the back-calculated K value generated by the Holladay IOL Consultant program. Age-matched patients undergoing phacoemulsification without previous refractive surgery served as controls.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent postoperative refraction was +0.21 diopter (D) (SD, 1.54; range, -2.25 to +2.25 D) for patients undergoing cataract extraction after LASIK versus -0.56 D (SD, 0.66; range, -2.375 to +0.5 D; p= 0.16) for controls. Thirty percent of cases versus 90% of controls were within 1 D ( p= 0.002) of emmetropia. Forty percent of cases versus no controls were more than 1 D hyperopic ( p= 0.08). The mean differences for each method compared with the back-calculated K values were MK, +0.82 D; VK, +1.24 D; RH, -0.76 D; CTL, +0.91 D; AVG 2, +0.08 D. The mean absolute deviations from the back-calculated K values were MK, 1.91 D; VK, 2.01 D; RH, 1.68 D; CTL, 1.62 D; AVG 2, 1.42 D.

CONCLUSION

Significant refractive errors occurred with each of the methods investigated for determining IOL power after LASIK. RH, CL, or AVG 2 provided the most accurate results.

Correlation between refractive and measured corneal power changes after myopic excimer laser photorefractive surgery

PURPOSE

To determine the correlation between the refractive and measured corneal power changes after myopic photorefractive surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.

METHODS

Eighty-six eyes that had myopic photorefractive surgery were analyzed. The data included preoperative and 1-year postoperative subjective refraction, standard automated keratometry, and computerized videokeratography. Statistical analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the changes in subjective refraction in the corneal plane (Delta SEQco) and in 4 corneal power measurements including the power measured by automated keratometry (Delta Auto K), topographic-simulated keratometric power (Delta Sim K), the power of the first photokeratoscopic ring on videokeratography (Delta Central K), and the average videokeratographic power on the pupil margin (Delta Pupil K).

RESULTS

The measured corneal power always underestimated the Delta SEQco, with Delta SEQco > Delta Central K > Delta Sim K > Delta Pupil K > Delta Auto K. All the changes in measured corneal power could predict the Delta SEQco with more than 90.00% (90.19% to 92.31%) reliability at 1 year as calculated by the regression formulas (P <.001). The underestimation of measured corneal power changes was correlated with the amount of myopic correction, especially the Auto K (all P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct corneal power measurements using automatic keratometry underestimated the actual corneal flattening after photorefractive surgery, which could be adjusted by a linear regression formula. Measuring the power of the first photokeratoscopic ring on videokeratography might provide a better estimation of actual corneal flattening after photorefractive surgery.

Accuracy and predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To study the accuracy and predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes that had laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

SETTING

Gimbel Eye Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

METHODS

Refractive outcomes in 6 cataract surgery and lensectomy eyes after previous LASIK were analyzed retrospectively. Target refractions based on measured and refraction-derived keratometric values were compared with postoperative achieved refractions. Differences between target refractions calculated using 5 IOL formulas and 2 A-constants and achieved refractions were also compared.

RESULTS

The refractive error of IOL power calculation in postoperative LASIK eyes was significantly reduced when refraction-derived keratometric values were used for IOL power calculation. Persistent residual hyperopia still occurred in some cases; this was corrected by hyperopic LASIK. Refractive results appeared more accurate and predictable when the Holladay 2 or Binkhorst 2 formula was used for IOL power calculation.

CONCLUSION

Hyperopic error after cataract surgery in post-LASIK eyes was significantly reduced by using refraction-derived keratometric values for IOL power calculation. Persistent hyperopic error was corrected by hyperopic LASIK.