Intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

Refractive outcomes following cataract surgery in patients who have had myopic laser vision correction

Objective

Prediction errors are increased among patients presenting for cataract surgery post laser vision correction (LVC) as biometric relationships are altered. We investigated the prediction errors of five formulae among these patients.

Methods and analysis

The intended refractive error was calculated as a sphero-cylinder and as a spherical equivalent for analysis. For determining the difference between the intended and postoperative refractive error, data were transformed into components of Long's formalism, before changing into sphero-cylinder notation. These differences in refractive errors were compared between the five formulae and to that of a control group using a Kruskal-Wallis test. An F-test was used to compare the variances of the difference distributions.

Results

22 eyes post LVC and 19 control eyes were included for analysis. Comparing both groups, there were significant differences in the postoperative refractive error (p=0.038). The differences between the intended and postoperative refractive error were greater in post LVC eyes than control eyes (p=0.012), irrespective of the calculation method for the intended refractive error (p<0.01). The mean difference between the intended and postoperative refractive error was relatively small, but its variance was significantly greater among post LVC eyes than control eyes (p<0.01). Among post LVC eyes, there were no significant differences between the mean intended target refraction and between the intended and postoperative refractive error using five biometry formulae (p=0.76).

Conclusion

Biometry calculations were less precise for patients who had LVC than patients without LVC. No particular biometry formula appears to be superior among patients post LVC.

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.

Agreement between clinical history method, Orbscan IIz, and Pentacam in estimating corneal power after myopic excimer laser surgery

The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement between the clinical history method (CHM), Orbscan IIz, and Pentacam in estimating corneal power after myopic excimer laser surgery. Fifty five patients who had myopic LASIK/PRK were recruited into this study. One eye of each patient was randomly selected by a computer-generated process. At 6 months after surgery, postoperative corneal power was calculated from the CHM, Orbscan IIz total optical power at the 3.0 and 4.0 mm zones, and Pentacam equivalent keratometric readings (EKRs) at 3.0, 4.0, and 4.5 mm. Statistical analyses included multilevel models, Pearson’s correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots. The Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm and 4.0 mm total optical power, and Pentacam 3.0-mm, 4.0-mm, and 4.5-mm EKR values had strong linear positive correlations with the CHM values (r = 0.90–0.94, P = <0.001, for all comparisons, Pearson’s correlation). However, only Pentacam 3.0-mm EKR was not statistically different from CHM (P = 0.17, multilevel models). The mean 3.0- and 4.0-mm total optical powers of the Orbscan IIz were significantly flatter than the values derived from CHM, while the average EKRs of the Pentacam at 4.0 and 4.5 mm were significantly steeper. The mean Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm total optical power was the lowest keratometric reading compared to the other 5 values. Large 95% LoA was observed between each of these values, particularly EKRs, and those obtained with the CHM. The width of the 95% LoA was narrowest for Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm total optical power. In conclusion, the keratometric values extracted from these 3 methods were disparate, either because of a statistically significant difference in the mean values or moderate agreement between them. Therefore, they are not considered equivalent and cannot be used interchangeably.

Intraocular Lens Power Selection after Radial Keratotomy: Topography, Manual, and IOLMaster Keratometry Results Using Haigis Formulas

PURPOSE

To compare final spherical equivalent (SE) refractions in patients who previously underwent radial keratotomy (RK) undergoing routine cataract surgery using keratometry (K) values from the Tomey (Topographic Modeling System [TMS]; Tomey Corp., Phoenix, AZ) Placido topographer, manual keratometer, and IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) keratometer using the Haigis formulas.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SUBJECTS

A total of 26 RK eyes (20 patients) with a minimum of 3 months postoperative follow-up.

METHODS

The following K values were evaluated: TMS topography (flattest K within first 9 rings, average K, minimum K), manual K, IOLMaster K. The final refractive goal was -0.50 diopters (D) for all eyes. The Haigis formula with target refraction -0.50 D was used. In addition, because of observed hyperopic overcorrections, IOLMaster K with the Haigis formula set to -1.00 D but with a final refractive goal of -0.50 D was also tested. The Haigis-L formula using IOLMaster K values was separately evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean final SE refraction, percent final SE within ideal (-0.12 to -1.00 D), acceptable (0.25 to -1.50 D), or unacceptable (<-1.50 or >0.25 D) range and within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D of the intended result.

RESULTS

Best results with minimal overcorrections were achieved with TMS flattest K (mean -0.68±0.60 D, 73% within ±0.50 D, and 88% within ±1.00 D of the surgical goal) and IOLMaster K set for target -1.00 D (mean -0.66±0.61 D, 69% within ±0.50 D, and 88% within ±1.00 D of the surgical goal). Other values produced more hyperopic (manual, IOLMaster K set for target -0.50 D, average topography) or higher myopic (minimum topography, Haigis-L) results.

CONCLUSIONS

For simplicity, using the IOLMaster K values combined with the Haigis formula set for target refraction -1.00 D produces acceptable results aiming for -0.50 D final SE refractions in former RK patients undergoing routine cataract surgery.

Conductive keratoplasty: an approach for the correction of residual hyperopia in post-lasik pseudophakia

Although there are many formulae for the calculation of intraocular lens power in the eyes with previous kerato-refractive surgeries, unexpected refractive bias still exists. Hyperopic bias is particularly disliked because it affects both uncorrected distance and near visual acuity. Surgical treatment of the residual hyperopia for the eyes with both laser in situ keratomileusis and cataract surgery remains to be a big problem. Conductive keratoplasty has been shown to be an effective, safe and predictable method for low and moderate hyperopia in the pseudophakic eyes or in the eyes with kerato-refractive surgeries. However, the efficacy and safety of conductive keratoplasty in the correction of residual hyperopia after both corneal and lens refractive surgeries has not been reported. Herein, we reported the surgical correction with conductive keratoplasty for cases of residual hyperopia with/without astigmatism after previous laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia and following phacoemulsification combined with posterior intraocular lens implantation for complicated cataract.

Intraocular lens power calculations after myopic laser refractive surgery: a comparison of methods in 173 eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare published methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after myopic laser refractive surgery in a large, multi-surgeon study.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 173 eyes of 117 patients who had uneventful LASIK (89) or photorefractive keratectomy (84) for myopia and subsequent cataract surgery.

METHODS

Data were collected from primary sources in patient charts. The Clinical History Method (vertex corrected to the corneal plane), the Aramberri Double-K, the Latkany Flat-K, the Feiz and Mannis, the R-Factor, the Corneal Bypass, the Masket (2006), the Haigis-L, and the Shammas.cd postrefractive adjustment methods were evaluated in conjunction with third- and fourth-generation optical vergence formulas, as appropriate. Intraocular lens power required for emmetropia was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction and implanted IOL power, and then formula accuracy was compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prediction error arithmetic mean ± standard deviation (SD), range (minimum and maximum), and percent within 0 to -1.0 diopters (D), ±0.5 D, ±1.0 D, and ±2.0 D relative to target refraction.

RESULTS

The top 5 corneal power adjustment techniques and formula combinations in terms of mean prediction errors, standard deviations, and minimizing hyperopic "refractive surprises" were the Masket with the Hoffer Q formula, the Shammas.cd with the Shammas-PL formula, the Haigis-L, the Clinical History Method with the Hoffer Q, and the Latkany Flat-K with the SRK/T with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of -0.18±0.87 D, -0.10±1.02 D, -0.26±1.13 D, -0.27±1.04 D, and -0.37±0.91 D, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

By using these methods, 70% to 85% of eyes could achieve visual outcomes within 1.0 D of target refraction. The Shammas and the Haigis-L methods have the advantage of not requiring potentially inaccurate historical information.

Practical method to calculate post-LASIK corneal power: the Actual K(a+p) method

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of a practical method (the Actual K(a+p) method) of corneal power measurement for post-LASIK eyes undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

Ten eyes of 7 patients (4 male, 3 female, average age 50.10±4.01 years, with -11.01±3.55D mean refraction before LASIK), underwent post-LASIK phaco+IOL cataract surgery. We used the posterior corneal curvature as measured by the Pentacam in a method we named Actual K(a+p) to calculate the post-LASIK corneal power for IOL calculation. The refractive outcomes after cataract surgery were evaluated. The Actual K(a+p) was compared with the back- calculated corneal power (BCK), which was thought to be the benchmark of true corneal power. The corneal power estimated by other published methods, including Maloney, Shammas, Koch-Maloney, Savini, and McCulley, together with the true net power and equivalent K reading (EKR) as found by the Pentacam were also compared with the BCK.

RESULTS

All eyes achieved satisfied refractive status after cataract surgery. The difference between the postoperative refraction and the target refraction was 0.04±0.40D, range from -0.63D and +0.85D. Among all the methods we studied, although the Bonferroni multiple comparison tests did not detect significant differences between any two of them, the Actual K(a+p) yielded the highest agreement with the BCK, with 80% of the eyes falling within ±0.5D and 100% within ±1.0D from the BCK values.

CONCLUSION

The Actual K(a+p) method can provide encour- aging results in post-LASIK eyes undergoing cataract surgery.

Calculations of Corneal Power After Corneo-Refractive Surgery from Keratometry and Change of Spectacle Refraction: Some Considerations on the “Clinical History Method”

PURPOSE

To derive corneal power after kerato-refractive laser surgery (KRS) to be used for a subsequent intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

MODEL

Based on the proportion of curvatures of the corneal front and back surface, the central thickness, and the ablation characteristics, we demonstrate a vergence-based formalism to derive the equivalent and back vertex corneal power before and after KRS from the preoperative measured keratometry. As a second option, we demonstrate in the paper how to derive the respective values from the postoperative (instead of the preoperative) measured keratometry.

EXAMPLE

Initial refraction before/after KRS, -12.0/-2.0 D; corneal thickness, 550/440 microm; front/back surface power 48.20-5.81 D, measured Zeiss keratometry before KRS, 42.5 D. After KRS, we calculate a corneal front surface power of 39.82 D and an equivalent/back vertex power and keratometry of 34.08/34.48/35.11 D (result of the "Clinical History Method" at spectacle/corneal plane 32.50/33.96 D). Calculated corneal power values are around 2-3 D lower than measured Zeiss keratometry (37.0 D), which will lead to an IOL power overestimation of about 3-4 D and subsequent hyperopia.

CONCLUSIONS

This formalism may help to prevent hyperopia after cataract surgery subsequent to refractive surgery for myopia.

Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heightened patient expectations for precise postoperative refractive results have spurred the continued improvements in biometry and intraocular lens calculations. In order to meet these expectations, attention to proper patient selection, accurate keratometry and biometry, and appropriate intraocular lens power formula selection with optimized lens constants are required. The article reviews recent studies and advances in the field of biometry and intraocular lens power calculations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several noncontact optical-based devices compare favorably, if not superiorly, to older ultrasonic biometric and keratometric techniques. With additional improvements in the internal acquisition algorithm, the new IOL Master software version 5 upgrade should lessen operator variability and further enhance signal acquisition. The modern Haigis-L and Holladay 2 formulas more accurately determine the position and the shape of the intraocular lens power prediction curve.

SUMMARY

Postoperative refractive results depend on the precision of multiple factors and measurements. The element with the highest variability and inaccuracy is, ultimately, going to determine the outcome. By understanding the advantages and limitations of the current technology, it is possible to consistently achieve highly accurate results.

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.

Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of Orbscan II slit-scanning videokeratography for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with previous photorefractive surgery for myopia.

SETTING

Private practice, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

METHODS

Corneal power (K) was measured by manual keratometry, Placido-based videokeratography (Atlas), slit-scanning videokeratography (Orbscan II), and contact lens overrefraction in 21 post-photoablation eyes having cataract surgery. Postoperative data collected after phacoemulsification were used to back-calculate corneal power (BCK). The BCK values were statistically compared at 3.0 to 6.0 mm central Orbscan II curvature and power measurements, including total axial power, total tangential power, total mean power, and total optical power. Similar comparisons were made to Atlas curvature at the 0.0 to 10.0 mm zones.

RESULTS

The mean corneal power after refractive surgery based on BCK values using the Holladay 2 formula (BCK H2) was 39.35 diopters (D) +/- 2.58 (SD). The mean manual value (40.52 +/- 1.95 D) and Atlas-based values were statistically higher than BCK H2 values (P<.001). The mean corneal power calculated from historical data was 39.33 +/- 2.70 D (P = .83 to BCK H2; n = 19) and from contact lens overrefraction, 41.38 +/- 3.11 D (P = .19; n = 5). Orbscan II parameters (n = 21) of the total mean power (3.0 mm, 39.10 +/- 2.63 D), total tangential power (3.0 mm, 39.11 +/- 2.60), total axial power (5.0 mm, 39.19 +/- 2.55 D), and total optical power (3.0 mm, 39.08 +/- 2.78 D; 4.0 mm, 39.39 +/- 2.76 D) were statistically similar to both the historical and BCK H2 values (P>.11). If used prospectively, 80.9% of eyes would have been within +/-0.50 D of the targeted refraction using a 4.0 mm total optical power, 76.2% using a 5.0 mm total axial power, and 42.1% using the historical method.

CONCLUSION

The Orbscan II 5.0 mm total axial power and 4.0 mm total optical power can be used to more accurately predict true corneal power than the history-based method and may be particularly useful when pre-LASIK data are unavailable.

No-history method of intraocular lens power calculation for cataract surgery after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the no-history method for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in 15 cataractous eyes that had previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and for which the pre-LASIK K-readings were not available.

SETTING

Private practice, Lynwood, California, USA.

METHODS

The predicted IOL power was calculated in each case. Also calculated were the mean arithmetic and absolute IOL predictor errors, range of the prediction errors, and number of eyes in which the error was within +/-1.00 diopter (D).

RESULTS

The mean arithmetic IOL prediction error was -0.003 D +/- 0.63 (SD), and the mean absolute IOL prediction error was 0.55 +/- 0.31 D (range -0.89 to +1.05 D). Fourteen eyes (93.3%) were within +/-1.00 D. The results of the Shammas post-LASIK formula compared favorably to the results obtained with the optimized Holladay 1 (P = .42), Hoffer Q (P = .25), Haigis (P = .30), and Holladay 2 (P = .19) formulas and were better than the results obtained with the optimized SRK/T formula (P = .0005).

CONCLUSION

The no-history method is a viable alternative for IOL power calculation after myopic LASIK when the refractive surgery data are not available.

Estimation of true corneal power after keratorefractive surgery in eyes requiring cataract surgery: BESSt formula

PURPOSE

To describe a new formula, BESSt, to estimate true corneal power after keratorefractive surgery in eyes requiring cataract surgery.

SETTING

Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom.

METHODS

The BESSt formula, based on the Gaussian optics formula, was developed using data from 143 eyes that had keratorefractive surgery. The formula takes into account anterior and posterior corneal radii and pachymetry (Pentacam, Oculus) and does not require pre-keratorefractive surgery information. A software program was developed (BESSt Corneal Power Calculator), and corneal power was calculated in 13 eyes that had keratorefractive surgery and required cataract surgery.

RESULTS

In the eyes having phacoemulsification, target refractions calculated with the BESSt formula were statistically significantly closer to the postoperative manifest refraction (mean deviation 0.08 diopters [D] +/- 0.62 [SD]) than those calculated with other methods as follows: history technique (-0.07 +/- 1.92 D; P = .05); history technique with double-K adjustment (0.13 +/- 2.39 D; P = .05); Holladay 2 with K-values estimated with the contact lens method (-0.76 +/- 1.36 D; P = .03); Holladay 2 with K-values from Atlas topographer (Humphrey) (-0.55 +/- 0.61 D; P<.01). Using the BESSt formula, 46% of eyes were within +/-0.50 D of the intended refraction and 100% were within +/-1.00 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The BESSt formula was statistically significantly more accurate than the other techniques tested. Thus, it could significantly improve intraocular lens power calculation accuracy after keratorefractive surgery, especially when pre-refractive surgery data are unavailable.

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.

The AS biometry technique--a novel technique to aid accurate intraocular lens power calculation after corneal laser refractive surgery

Intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation for cataract surgery has been shown to be inaccurate after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Many techniques exist to calculate corneal power with varying results and require the clinician to be aware of the pitfalls of IOL power calculation in post-refractive eyes. The AS biometry method proposed here is a simple method which does not rely on the calculation of corneal power. This new method is compared to the current gold standard the clinical history method (CHM). Twenty-nine eyes of 15 patients had routine biometry prior to LASIK, LASEK or PRK. The range of pre-operative spherical equivalent refractive error was -5.37 to +4.00 diopters. The post-operative refraction was measured at 3-6 months. The IOL power calculation was calculated using the AS biometry method and the CHM. The two methods were compared using the Student's paired t-test and the Bland Altman technique. There was no statistical difference between the AS biometry method and the CHM. The paired Student's t-test comparing the AS biometry method and the CHM showed no statistical difference, t=0.33 with a p-value of 0.75, at a 95% confidence interval. The authors conclude that the AS biometry technique is as accurate as the CHM. The former is a simpler method which avoids many of the pitfalls and confounding factors involved in IOL power calculation following corneal excimer laser surgery. However, like the CHM it requires measurements prior to laser surgery.

Analysis of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation for Eyes With Previous Myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a manual keratometry (K) adjusted value for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery following previous myopic LASIK.

METHODS

Sixteen eyes of 14 consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery after previous LASIK were evaluated retrospectively. All IOL powers were calculated using an adjusted K value (K minus 1.0 diopter [D]) with the Binkhorst II formula aiming for -0.75 to -1.00 D final refraction. Additionally, the IOL power for each eye was retrospectively calculated using K, refractive-derived K, and adjusted K with the Binkhorst II, Holladay I, and SRK/T formulas. The final refraction was used as a criterion of accuracy of each approach.

RESULTS

Uncorrected visual acuity > or = 20/40 was achieved in 14 (87.5%) of 16 eyes. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was -0.41 +/- 0.57 D (range: +0.50 to -2.00 D). Twelve (75%) of 16 eyes were within +/- 0.50 D of emmetropia and 15 (94%) of 16 eyes were within +/- 1.00 D. No eye was > +1.00 D.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an adjusted K with the Binkhorst II formula, aiming for -0.75 to -1.00 D, and with the Holladay I formula, aiming for -0.50 to -1.00 D, measuring K with a regular manual keratometer permits determination of an IOL power after myopic LASIK without the need of preoperative LASIK refractive data.

Accurate intraocular lens power calculation after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis, bypassing corneal power

PURPOSE

To describe a novel method for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) without using the inaccuracies of the post-LASIK corneal power.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Wake Forest University Eye Center, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review comprised 9 eyes of 9 patients who had phacoemulsification after LASIK using our method for IOL calculation. This new method assumes the patient never had myopic LASIK to calculate IOL power and then targets the IOL at the pre-LASIK amount of myopia. The pre-LASIK keratometry values, pre-LASIK manifest refraction, and the current axial length are placed in the Holladay formula, bypassing the post-LASIK corneal power. In theory, assuming that the patient had satisfactory LASIK results, the correct IOL can then be determined.

RESULTS

The mean spherical equivalent postoperative refraction was +0.03 diopter (D) +/- 0.42 (SD) (range -0.625 to +0.75 D). In all 9 eyes, our method consistently chose the most accurate and precise IOL compared with other methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The new method of calculating IOL power after LASIK provided excellent results and the most accurate and precise results to date.

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.

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.

Accuracy of intraoperative retinoscopy in corneal power and axial length estimation using a high plus soft contact lens

AIM

To assess the accuracy of intraoperative retinoscopy with high plus soft contact lens (CL) in estimating corneal power and the axial length compared with standard keratometry and biometry measurement.

METHODS

Intraoperative retinoscopy was performed in 30 eyes prior to the implantation of an intraocular lens (IOL). A +10 D disposable soft contact lens was applied on the cornea to minimize retinoscopic error. Corneal power was derived from refraction using biometric axial length while the axial length was derived using keratometric measurement. Refraction derived corneal powers and axial lengths from 26 eyes within +/-1.00 D of the target postoperative refraction were compared with preoperative standard keratometry and biometry measurements.

RESULTS

In the 26 eyes, the mean difference between the corneal powers derived from refraction and keratometry was 0.35 D (S.D.=1.678). The 95% limits of agreement were -3.006 to +3.706. The mean difference between the axial lengths derived from refraction and biometry was 0.15 mm (S.D.=0.721). The 95% limits of agreement were -1.292 to 1.542.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative retinoscopy with a high plus soft contact lens after phacoemulsification is useful but not accurate in estimating corneal power or axial length of the eye. It should be used cautiously in IOL power calculation as a substitute for standard keratometry or biometry machines when either of these is not available or in error.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone LASIK

OBJECTIVE

To compare methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power for cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone myopic LASIK.

DESIGN

Noncomparative case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven eyes of 8 patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK (amount of LASIK correction [+/-standard deviation], -5.50+/-2.61 diopters [D]; range, -8.78 to -2.38 D) and subsequently phacoemulsification with implantation of the SA60AT IOLs (Alcon Surgical, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) were included (refractive error after cataract surgery, -0.61 +/- 0.79 D; range, -2.0 to 1.0 D).

METHODS

We evaluated the accuracy of various combinations of: (1) single-K versus double-K (in which pre-LASIK keratometry is used to estimate effective lens position) versions of the IOL formulas; the Feiz-Mannis method was also evaluated; (2) 4 methods for calculating corneal refractive power (clinical history, contact lens overrefraction, adjusted effective refractive power [EffRP(adj)], and Maloney methods); and (3) 4 IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Holladay 2). The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the IOL power calculated using various methods from the power of the implanted IOL, and the F test for variances was performed to assess the consistency of the prediction performance by different methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute IOL prediction error, and variance of the IOL prediction error.

RESULTS

Compared with double-K formulas, single-K formulas predicted lower IOL powers than the power implanted and would have left patients hyperopic in most cases; the Feiz-Mannis method had the largest variance. For the Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas, the variances for EffRP(adj) were significantly smaller than those for the clinical history method (0.43 D2 vs. 1.74 D2, P = 0.018 for Hoffer Q; 0.75 D2 vs. 2.35 D2, P = 0.043 for Holladay 1). The Maloney method consistently underestimated the IOL power but had significantly smaller variances (0.19-0.55 D2) than those for the clinical history method (1.09-2.35 D2; P<0.015). There were no significant differences among the variances for the 4 formulas when using each corneal power calculation method.

CONCLUSIONS

The most accurate method was the combination of a double-K formula and corneal values derived from EffRP(adj). The variances in IOL prediction error were smaller with the Maloney and EffRP(adj) methods, and we propose a modified Maloney method and second method using Humphrey data for further evaluation.