Predictability of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation for Cataract with Keratoconus: A Multicenter Study

Accuracy of intraocular lens power formulas in eyes with keratoconus: Multi-center study in Japan

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas, namely, SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane formula, and Kane formula for keratoconus, for cataract with keratoconus in Japanese eyes.

SETTING

Five surgical sites in Japan.

DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

METHODS

Eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery were included. Postoperative refraction was compared with the prediction by the formulas. Visual acuity, manifest spherical equivalent, prediction error (PE), and mean absolute errors (MAEs) were determined 1 month postoperatively. The PE within 0.50 diopter (D), 1.00 D, and 2.00 D were compared between IOL formulas. Subgroup analysis based on the steepest keratometry (stage 1, ≤ 48 D; stage 2, > 48 D and ≤ 53 D; and stage 3, > 53 D) was performed. The relationship between PE and preoperative biometric data were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty eyes were included. The MAE of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane keratoconus, and Kane formulas were significantly lower than that of Haigis. A statistically significant difference in the prediction accuracy within ± 0.50 D was found between Kane keratoconus and Haigis. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, SRK/T, and Kane within ± 1.00 D was statistically significant compared with that of Haigis. In stage 3, the Barrett True-K for keratoconus had a significantly lower MAE than SRK/T and Haigis.

CONCLUSION

Keratoconus-specific formulas were more accurate than existing formulas in Japanese eyes. The Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus had higher prediction accuracy in severe keratoconus.

Current concepts in the management of cataract with keratoconus

This review analyzed all pertinent articles on keratoconus (KCN) and cataract surgery. It covers preoperative planning, intraoperative considerations, and postoperative management, with the aim of providing a simplified overview of treating such patients. Preoperatively, the use of corneal cross-linking, intrastromal corneal ring segments, and topo-guided corneal treatments can help stabilize the cornea and improve the accuracy of biometric measurements. It is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of traditional techniques such as penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, as well as newer stromal augmentation techniques, to choose the most appropriate surgical approach. Obtaining reliable measurements can be difficult, especially in the advanced stages of the disease. The choice between toric and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) should be carefully evaluated. Monofocal IOLs are a better choice in patients with advanced disease, and toric lenses can be used in mild and stable KCN. Intraoperatively, the use of a rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens can overcome the challenge of image distortion and loss of visual perspective. Postoperatively, patients may need updated RGP or scleral lenses to correct the corneal irregular astigmatism. A thorough preoperative planning is crucial for good surgical outcomes, and patients need to be informed regarding potential postoperative surprises. In conclusion, managing cataracts in KCN patients presents a range of challenges, and a comprehensive approach is essential to achieve favorable surgical outcomes.

Prediction of total corneal power in keratoconus using anterior surface data

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Keratoconus results in an increase in anterior and posterior curvatures and a reduction in corneal thickness. Anterior corneal ectasia is partially compensated by remodelling the corneal epithelium. Therefore, there is an alteration in the relationship between corneal surfaces and variation in corneal power. The variation in corneal power is one of the sources that induces errors in IOL power calculation.

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess a method for predicting total corneal power in keratoconus using several anterior surface parameters at 3 mm and 4 mm.

METHODS

    Tomographic data obtained using Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) were analysed from 280 eyes of 140 patients with keratoconus using anterior and posterior keratometry, anterior Q-value at 8 mm, central corneal thickness, Kmax location and value, and true net power at 4 mm (TNP). Calculated total corneal power (TCPc) at 3 mm was obtained using the Gauss formula. Predicted total corneal power at 3 mm (TCPp3) and 4 mm (TCPp4) was obtained from univariate (TCPp3u and TCPp4u) and multivariate linear regression formulae (TCPp3m and TCPp4m). SimK, anterior Q-value, vertical location, and Kmax value were used in the multivariate formulae. Mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were also calculated. Absolute frequencies within dioptric ranges of all formulas divided for keratoconus grading were evaluated.

RESULTS

TCPc and TNP exhibited a good correlation (R2 = 0.58, p < 0.05) with a higher dispersion above 50 D of corneal power. Highly significant correlations were observed between TCPp3u and TCPc (R2 = 0.978, p < 0.05) and TCPp3m and TCPc (R2 = 0.989, p < 0.05). Lower but significant correlations were observed between TCPp4u and TNP (R2 = 0.692, p < 0.05) and between TCPp4m and TNP (R2 = 0.887, p < 0.05). The best results for TCP prediction at 3 and 4 mm were obtained with TCPp3m and TCPp4m as follows: MAE of TCPp3m was 0.24 ± 0.20 (SD) D with MedAE of 0.20 D, while MAE of TCPp4m was 0.96 ± 0.77 D with MedAE of 0.80 D. The 3 mm multivariate regression formula results in higher absolute frequencies of prediction errors in the total eyes within 0.5 D (93%) than the univariate formula (81%). At 4mm, the multivariate regression formula has a lower percentage within 0.5 D (32%) than the univariate formula (41%), but the percentage of the multivariate formula is higher within 1 D (63%) than the univariate formula (56%).

CONCLUSION

All formulas show a decrease in accuracy with increasing grades of keratoconus. Multivariate linear regression formulae using only anterior surface data can predict TCP with good approximation in eyes with keratoconus in cases where posterior surface parameters are unavailable. The vertical location of Kmax and the anterior asphericity could play a relevant role in the prediction of total corneal power in keratoconus.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the utility of keratometry vs total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing.

RESULTS

KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE.

CONCLUSIONS

KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used.

Visual Outcomes of Cataract Surgery in Patients With Keratoconus Using Toric and Non-toric Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy and outcomes of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery with toric and non-toric IOLs.

METHODS

This was a consecutive retrospective case series study including patients from the Cornea Service at the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, from 2000 to 2020. Keratoconus was diagnosed based on corneal topography and clinician opinion. Patients who underwent topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments implantation, or corneal transplant were excluded. The manifest spherical equivalent, prediction errors, and median absolute errors were calculated. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

There were 160 eyes from 101 patients; 136 eyes received non-toric lenses and 24 eyes received toric lenses. Most patients had mild disease (< 48.00 diopters [D]) when stratified by steep keratometry values. Patients with severe disease (> 53.00 D) were significantly more hyperopic following surgery (P < .05). The Barrett Universal II (0.26 D, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 0.4), Holladay 2 (0.31, IQR = 1.2), and SRK/T (0.42, IQR = 0.86) formulas had the lowest median absolute error. The postoperative prediction error following toric lens insertion was not significantly different than following non-toric lens insertion, and the mean absolute astigmatism was significantly reduced with toric lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and SRK/T were the most accurate IOL power calculation formulas in patients with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. Hyperopic surprise was increased in severe keratoconus. Toric IOLs may be considered in patients with mild keratoconus. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):319-325.].

Ray tracing optimization: a new method for intraocular lens power calculation in regular and irregular corneas

To develop a novel algorithm based on ray tracing, simulated visual performance and through-focus optimization for an accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. Custom-developed algorithms for ray tracing optimization (RTO) were used to combine the natural corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs) with multiple sphero-cylindrical corrections in 210 higher order statistical eye models for developing keratoconus. The magnitude of defocus and astigmatism producing the maximum Visual Strehl was considered as the optimal sphero-cylindrical target for IOL power calculation. Corneal astigmatism and the RMS HOAs ranged from - 0.64 ± 0.35D and 0.10 ± 0.04 μm (0-months) to - 3.15 ± 1.38D and 0.82 ± 0.47 μm (120-months). Defocus and astigmatism target was close to neutral for eyes with low amount of HOAs (0 and 12-months), where 91.66% of eyes agreed within ± 0.50D in IOL power calculation (RTO vs. SRK/T). However, corneas with higher amounts of HOAs presented greater visual improvement with an optimized target. In these eyes (24- to 120-months), only 18.05% of eyes agreed within ± 0.50D (RTO vs. SRK/T). The power difference exceeded 3D in 42.2% while the cylinder required adjustments larger than 3D in 18.4% of the cases. Certain amounts of lower and HOAs may interact favourably to improve visual performance, shifting therefore the refractive target for IOL power calculation.

Quantifying Corneal Topographic Astigmatism (CorT Total) in Keratoconic Eyes

PURPOSE

To determine optimal corneal regions from which to derive corneal topographic astigmatism (CorT) in kerato-conic eyes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, potential measures of corneal astigmatism are calculated from raw total corneal power data (179 eyes from 124 patients) from a corneal tomographer. The measures are derived from annular corneal regions varying in both extent and center position, and evaluated according to the variability of the ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) in the cohort. This variability is quantified by the ORArms, which is the root-mean-squared distance of the ORAs from their summated vector mean in double angle space. The lower the ORArms, the better the corneal astigmatism measure corresponds to manifest refractive cylinder.

RESULTS

Corneal astigmatism measures derived from regions centered on corneal vertex had ORArms values (mild: 1.07 diopters [D], moderate: 1.61 D, severe: 2.65 D) as low or lower than other measures derived from regions centered on thinnest point, corneal apex (front or back), or pupil center. Corneal astigmatism measures derived from a region centered 30% of the way toward thinnest point from corneal vertex appeared to have even lower ORArms values (mild: 1.05 D, moderate: 1.45 D, severe: 2.56 D). None of the corneal astigmatism measures corresponded closely with manifest refractive cylinder for severe keratoconus (ORArms > 2.50 D).

CONCLUSIONS

For keratoconic eyes, the CorT should be derived from an annular region centered 30% of the way toward thinnest point from corneal vertex, although when the keratoconus is mild, a standard corneal-vertex-centered CorT performs just as well. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(3):206-213.].

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations in eyes with keratoconus

PURPOSE

To compare the prediction accuracy of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus with standard formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, and Kane) and the Kane keratoconus formula.

SETTING

Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, and University Eye Clinic, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective case series.

METHODS

Eyes with stable keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery were included. The predicted refractions were calculated for SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K for keratoconus (predicted and measured), Kane, and Kane adjusted for keratoconus formulas. Primary outcomes were prediction error (PE), absolute error (AE), and percentage of eyes with PE ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, and ±1.00 D. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the severity of the keratoconus.

RESULTS

57 eyes were included in the study. The PE was not significantly different from zero for SRK/T, Barrett True-K (predicted and measured), and Kane keratoconus formulas (range 0.09 to 0.22 D, P > .05). The AE of Barrett True-K predicted (median 0.14 D) and Barrett True-K measured (median 0.10 D) were significantly lower from Barrett Universal II (median 0.47 D) and Kane (median 0.50 D), P < .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett True-K formulas for keratoconus had higher prediction accuracy as compared with new generation formulas and a similar prediction accuracy as compared with the Kane keratoconus formula.

Cataract surgery in Keratoconus revisited - An update on preoperative and intraoperative considerations and postoperative outcomes

PURPOSE

This review aims to evaluate and simplify the recent literature on preoperative surgical planning, intraoperative considerations, postoperative surprises, and their management in patients with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

A review of the literature was done to analyze all the pertinent articles on Keratoconus and cataract surgery.

RESULTS

The surgical planning of cataracts in eyes with keratoconus needs a multifaceted approach. Preoperatively, techniques such as cross-linking or the use of intra-corneal rings help stabilize the progression. Unreliable biometric measurements are a significant problem in keratoconus patients, especially in an advanced stage of the disease. It is better to consider actual K readings if the K value is less than 55D but for a K value, more than 55D using standard K values will prevent postoperative refractive surprises. For calculation of K values, an elevation-based device like pentacam gives better repeatability in mild to moderate cases whereas for advanced keratoconus none of the keratometers is reliable. Recently, the Kane keratoconus formula performed better in all stages of disease whereas previous studies showed good results with SRK/T formula is a mild and moderate disease. Monofocal intraocular lenses are a better choice in these patients. Toric lenses can be used in mild and stable keratoconus. Intraoperatively, the use of a customized RGP lens can overcome the challenge of image distortion and loss of visual perspective. Despite taking necessary measures, postoperative refractive surprise can occur and can be managed with IOL exchange or Secondary IOLs.

CONCLUSION

There is a spectrum of challenges in managing cataracts in keratoconus which makes thorough preoperative planning important for good surgical outcomes. Despite the measures, there might be post-operative surprises and the patients need to be informed regarding the same.

Cataract surgery considerations in patients with prior history of keratoconus and ectasia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Preoperative workup for cataract surgery in patients with keratoconus poses certain challenges, particularly in patients with moderate-to-severe disease. This review aims to outline the appropriate preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations and provides an algorithm to help guide the workup prior to surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

A new system for keratoconus progression and staging has been proposed and additional studies comparing intraocular lens (IOL) formulas calculations and biometry devices have been conducted.

SUMMARY

Patients with severe keratoconus have unpredictable results and have an increased risk of a hyperopic refraction postoperatively. Although studies have compared IOL calculation formulas, there is no consensus on management. Clinical considerations and an approach to the workup are presented; however, additional studies are required to determine the most appropriate management of cataracts in severe keratoconus.

Cataract surgery in patients with underlying keratoconus: focused review

An underlying diagnosis of keratoconus (KC) can complicate cataract surgery. In this study, the results of a focused review of the literature pertaining to cataract surgery in patients with KC are detailed. Topics essential for the appropriate management of this patient population are discussed. First, the individual and shared epidemiology and pathophysiology of cataract and KC are reviewed. Then, the theory and approach to intraocular lens power calculation are discussed, highlighting particularities and pitfalls of this exercise when performed in patients with KC. Finally, several special-although not uncommon-management scenarios and questions are addressed, such as surgical planning in cases where corneal stabilization or tissue replacement interventions are also necessitated.

Refractive Prediction Error in Cataract Surgery Using an Optical Biometer Equipped with Anterior-Segment Optical Coherence Tomography

PURPOSE

To evaluate refractive error after cataract surgery using an optical biometer equipped with anterior-segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).

SETTING

Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Japan.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational design.

METHODS

In total, 150 patients with cataract (150 eyes, mean age 73.4 ± 8.2 years, men 76, women 74), who underwent measurement of parameters with the anterior-segment OCT scanners ANTERIONTM (AS-OCTB) and IOL Master 700 (OCTB) before cataract surgery, were enrolled in the study. Refractive prediction error was compared between the two devices using the SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett UII formulas for IOL power calculation.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between AS-OCTB and OCTB in axial length, mean corneal refractive power, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and corneal diameter. In the SRK/T formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.06 ± 0.46 D and 0.02 ± 0.42 D, respectively. In the Haigis formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.23 ± 0.40 D and -0.08 ± 0.35 D, respectively. In the Barrett UII formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.02 ± 0.38 D and 0.11 ± 0.36 D, respectively. AS-OCTB showed significantly larger refractive prediction error toward myopia than OCTB in all three formulas (P <0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The refractive prediction error using AS-OCTB showed a small difference from that using OCTB. While clinically comparable, the two methods could drive meaningful differences in IOL selection.

Toric intraocular lens implantation - atypical cases

Objective: To describe the results of toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in three atypical cases (four eyes) with cataract and corneal astigmatism: one with bilateral keratoconus, one with pellucid marginal degeneration and one with buphthalmos due to congenital glaucoma.

Methods: Three patients (four eyes) with corneal astigmatism (one with bilateral keratoconus, one with pellucid marginal degeneration and one with buphthalmos due to congenital glaucoma) underwent cataract surgery by standard phacoemulsification and the implantation of toric IOLs in the capsular bag. The presence of corneal astigmatism was identified by automated keratometry and confirmed by Scheimpflug-based corneal tomography. The toric IOL implanted in all cases was a single-piece AcrySof Toric IOL (Alcon Laboratories, Inc.). Postoperative visual acuity, the reduction in the refractive astigmatism, the spherical equivalent (SE) and the rotational stability of the toric IOL were recorded for all the patients.

Results: Visual acuity increased and the refractive astigmatism decreased in all cases. In Case 1, the right eye achieved a postoperative uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) of 20/ 20, a decrease in the refractive astigmatism from -3 DCyl to -0.75 DCyl and a spherical equivalent (SE) of -0.25. The left eye presented with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/ 20, a decrease in the refractive astigmatism from -1.50 DCyl to -1.25 DCyl and a SE of -0.25. In Case 2, the postoperative UCVA was 20/ 20, with a decrease in the refractive astigmatism from -5.5 DCyl to -1 DCyl and a SE for the right eye of 0.00 D. In Case 3, the postoperative BCVA was 20/ 20, with a decrease in the refractive astigmatism from -4.75 DCyl to -1.50 DCyl and a SE of +1.25. No misalignment of the axis of the toric IOL was observed in any patient at subsequent follow-ups. The postoperative visual acuity was satisfactory for all the patients.

Conclusions: Toric intraocular lenses can be an effective option for implantation in patients with cataract and corneal astigmatism in atypical situations such as mild to moderate keratoconus, pellucid marginal degeneration and buphthalmos due to congenital glaucoma. Predicting the refractive outcome is difficult in atypical cases and the surgeon should have accuracy and consistency in the preoperative measurements, for achieving satisfactory postoperative results.

Correlating Kane formula with existing intraocular lens formulae for corneal curvatures and axial lengths

BACKGROUND:

To evaluate the predictability of the Kane formula in estimating postoperative refractive outcome with various corneal curvatures and axial lengths (ALs) besides comparing with existing intraocular lens (IOL) formulae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out among patients having uneventful cataract surgery at an eye hospital. A total of 50 eyes were considered for the study. The corresponding A-constant for the model of IOL implanted into the patient's eye was taken along with the actual power of IOL implanted and corresponding predicted power for the IOL power inserted were taken for all the chosen formulae and was termed as "Adjusted Predicted Refractive Power." This was compared with the actual refractive outcome and the absolute error (AE) was measured. The eyes were separated into groups in terms of corneal curvature as flat (<42D), medium (42D–46D), and steep (>46D) corneas. In terms of AL, it was grouped as short (≤22 mm), medium (>22.0–<24.0 mm), and long (>24.0 mm) eyes.

RESULTS:

The study included 50 eyes and the mean AE for all the selected formulae were calculated for each group. Over the entire corneal curvature range, none of the formulae showed any significance when compared with the Kane formula (P > 0.05). In short AL, SRK-T formula had a statistical significance over the Kane formula (P = 0.043), whereas no other group had any significance over the Kane formula in AL groups.

CONCLUSION:

The study shows, all formulae (SRK-T, Holladay1, Hoffer Q, Hill RBF, Barrett Universal II, Kane) are interchangeable to predict the IOL power for any of the corneal curvature and ALs.

Correlating Kane formula with existing intraocular lens formulae for corneal curvatures and axial lengths

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the predictability of the Kane formula in estimating postoperative refractive outcome with various corneal curvatures and axial lengths (ALs) besides comparing with existing intraocular lens (IOL) formulae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out among patients having uneventful cataract surgery at an eye hospital. A total of 50 eyes were considered for the study. The corresponding A-constant for the model of IOL implanted into the patient's eye was taken along with the actual power of IOL implanted and corresponding predicted power for the IOL power inserted were taken for all the chosen formulae and was termed as "Adjusted Predicted Refractive Power." This was compared with the actual refractive outcome and the absolute error (AE) was measured. The eyes were separated into groups in terms of corneal curvature as flat (<42D), medium (42D-46D), and steep (>46D) corneas. In terms of AL, it was grouped as short (≤22 mm), medium (>22.0-<24.0 mm), and long (>24.0 mm) eyes.

RESULTS

The study included 50 eyes and the mean AE for all the selected formulae were calculated for each group. Over the entire corneal curvature range, none of the formulae showed any significance when compared with the Kane formula (P > 0.05). In short AL, SRK-T formula had a statistical significance over the Kane formula (P = 0.043), whereas no other group had any significance over the Kane formula in AL groups.

CONCLUSION

The study shows, all formulae (SRK-T, Holladay1, Hoffer Q, Hill RBF, Barrett Universal II, Kane) are interchangeable to predict the IOL power for any of the corneal curvature and ALs.

Predictability of Refractive Outcome of a Small-Aperture Intraocular Lens in Eyes With Irregular Corneal Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare different new-generation biometric formulas and ray-tracing for small-aperture intraocular lens (IOL) (IC-8; Acufocus, Inc) implantation in patients undergoing cataract and refractive lens exchange surgery with highly irregular corneas.

METHODS

This monocenter study included 17 eyes of 17 patients with highly irregular corneas of different genesis. Biometric and topographic corneal data were assessed using the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and Pentacam (Oculus Optkigeräte GmbH). Prediction and absolute error were compared after 3 months based on manifest refraction. Furthermore, change of total corneal refractive power in different corneal pathologies was also evaluated. For IOL power calculation, three fourth-generation IOL formulas were compared (Haigis, SRK-T, and Barrett Universal II). The dataset was then checked against ray-tracing and analyzed to improve prediction error in these highly irregular corneas.

RESULTS

All patients showed an improvement in visual acuity postoperatively with a mean spherical equivalent of -1.22 ± 0.49 diopters (D). Overall comparison of the three formulas showed the Haigis formula to be superior in terms of the smallest deviation of predictive and absolute error. IOL calculations with ray-tracing were possible in all eyes, but showed inaccurate results with keratometric values of 48.00 D and greater.

CONCLUSIONS

The IC-8 IOL is well suited for patients with lens exchange in highly irregular corneas. The Haigis formula seemed to be the most accurate in the patient group. Ray-tracing confirmed the results of biometric formulas up to a keratometric value of 48.00 D and should be compared with standard biometric formulas to address corneal irregularities and to minimize refractive surprises after surgery. A comparison with ray-tracing in eyes with a keratometric value of greater than 48.00 D should not be considered due to the inaccurate results. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(5):312-317.].

Toric intraocular lens power calculation in cataract patients with keratoconus

Purpose

Intra-ocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with keratoconus typically results in hyperopic postoperative refractive error. We investigated the visual and refractive outcomes in keratoconus patients having cataract surgery with a toric IOL and compared IOL power calculation accuracy of conventional formulae and keratoconus specific formulae.

Setting

Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel.

Design

Retrospective case-series study.

Methods

Post-operative visual acuity and manifest refraction were examined. The error in predicted refraction and IOL power calculation accuracy within a range of 0.5 to 2.0 diopters were compared between different IOL calculating formulae.

Results

Thirty-two eyes with keratoconus were included. Visual acuity improved in all cases and subjective astigmatism decreased from -2.95+/-2.10 D to -0.95+/-0.80 D (p<0.001). Mean absolute errors were: Barrett True-K for keratoconus with measured or predicted posterior corneal power, 0.34 D; Barrett Universal II, 0.64 D; Kane Formula, 0.69 D; Kane Formula for keratoconus, 0.49 D; SRK/T, 0.56 D; Haigis, 0.72 D; Holladay 1, 0.71 D and Hoffer Q, 0.87 D. Barrett True-K formula with measured posterior corneal power, SRK/T and Kane Formula for keratoconus resulted in a prediction error within 0.5 D of 87.5%, 59.4% and 53.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

Cataract removal with a toric IOL significantly improves visual acuity and decreases astigmatism in keratoconic eyes with a topographic central relatively regular astigmatic component. Keratoconus specific formulae resulted in lower mean error in predicted refraction compared with conventional calculating formulae. Utilizing the posterior corneal power within the Barrett True K formula for keratoconus improved IOL power prediction accuracy.

Agreement of keratometric readings measured using rotating Scheimpflug imaging, auto-refractokeratometer, and biograph in eyes with keratoconus

AIM

To determine agreement in keratometric readings obtained using rotating Scheimpflug imaging with Pentacam, biograph with Lenstar LS900, and Topcon KR-8100P auto-keratorefractometer in eyes with different stages of keratoconus.

METHODS

A total of 89 eyes of 58 patients with keratoconus were examined in this study, retrospectively. The eyes were divided into two groups: mild group (group 1: 42 eyes) (Amsler-Krumeich stage 1) and moderate-to-severe group (group 2: 47 eyes) (Amsler-Krumeich stage 2, 3, 4). The keratometric readings measured using the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, Lenstar LS900, and Topcon KR-8100P auto-keratorefractometer were compared between the groups. The effects of the measurements of anterior chamber depth, Q value, axial length, central corneal thickness (CCT), and maximum value of keratometry (Kmax) on the differences of devices for keratometric readings were investigated.

RESULTS

The mean values of the keratometric readings obtained using the Lenstar were steeper than with the Pentacam and Topcon, especially in group 2. In group 1, the mean K2 values measured using the Lenstar were significantly steeper than with the Topcon (p < 0.05); however, the devices were accordant for the other keratometric readings. In group 2, there was an agreement between the Pentacam and Topcon for the mean K1 and Km values; however, there were significant differences between the devices for the other values. The Q value and CCT had a negative correlation, and Kmax had a positive correlation with the differences of Lenstar-Pentacam and Lenstar-Topcon (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

According to our results, Pentacam-Topcon and Pentacam-Lenstar can be used interchangeably for keratometry in mild stages of keratoconus. The keratometric readings of Lenstar were found steeper than the other devices with increasing grades of keratoconus. None of these devices can be used interchangeably in moderate-to-severe stages of keratoconus.

Corneal Topography for Intraocular Lens Selection in Refractive Cataract Surgery

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the usefulness of corneal topography to select premium intraocular lenses (IOLs), including aspherical IOLs, toric IOLs, and multifocal IOLs, in refractive cataract surgery. Corneal topography can detect corneal regular astigmatism, corneal irregular astigmatism (higher-order aberrations [HOAs]) including spherical aberration, and corneal shape abnormalities after corneal refractive surgery. Surgeons can explain to the patients with significant corneal HOAs about its effect on postoperative visual function before surgery. Multifocal IOLs should not be selected for such eyes. For eyes with abnormal corneal shape, appropriate IOL power calculation formulae can be applied. In the case of toric IOLs, regular astigmatism and corneal HOAs should be checked. Before implanting an aspheric IOL, it is ideal to confirm spherical aberration of the cornea is not below the normal range. Because corneal HOAs, abnormal corneal shape after corneal refractive surgery, corneal regular astigmatism, and corneal spherical aberration increase postoperative refractive errors and poor vision quality with premium IOLs, corneal topography before cataract surgery is helpful in screening patients who are not appropriate candidates for premium IOLs.

An innovative approach for determining the customized refractive index of ectatic corneas in cataractous patients

The aim of this study is to determine the customized refractive index of ectatic corneas and also propose a method for determining the corneal and IOL power in these eyes. Seven eyes with moderate and severe corneal ectatic disorders, which had been under cataract surgery, were included. At least three months after cataract surgery, axial length, cornea, IOL thickness and the distance between IOL from cornea, and aberrometry were measured. All the measured points of the posterior and anterior parts of the cornea converted to points cloud and surface by using the MATLAB and Solidworks software. The implanted IOLs were designed by Zemax software. The ray tracing analysis was performed on the customized eye models, and the corneal refractive index was determined by minimizing the difference between the measured aberrations from the device and resulted aberrations from the simulation. Then, by the use of preoperative corneal images, corneal power was calculated by considering the anterior and posterior parts of the cornea and refractive index of 1.376 and the customized corneal refractive index in different regions and finally it was entered into the IOL power calculation formulas. The corneal power in the 4 mm region and the Barrett formula resulted the prediction error of six eyes within ± 1 diopter. It seems that using the total corneal power along with the Barrett formula can prevent postoperative hyperopic shift, especially in eyes with advanced ectatic disorders.

Long-term refractive outcomes in patients with cataracts and keratoconus after phacoemulsification with toric intraocular lens implant

PURPOSE

To determine the refractive stability of patients with keratoconus and cataracts after the implantation of a toric intraocular lens.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, retrospectivestudy. Clinical records from patients with non-progressive keratoconus and cataracts that underwent non-complicated phacoemulsification with toric IOL implantation were reviewed. Mean keratometry (Km), refractive cylinder (RC), spherical equivalent (SE), steeper keratometry (K), and axis were evaluated at the 1-month, 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Fifty-four eyes from 41 patients were included. Thirty-seven (68.5%) female and 17 (31.5%) male patients, with a mean age of 67.52 ± 8.22. Refractive cylinder at postoperative 30 days was -1.61 ± 1.23, 6-month -1.22 ± 0.80, 12-month -1.10 ± 0.83 and 24-month visit after surgery was -1.37 ± 0.77(p = 0.290). SE at the 30-day visit was -0.82 ± 1.90, 6-month -0.64 ± 1.23, 12-month -0.78 ± 1.91 and at 24-month postoperative visit -1.02 ± 1.87 (p = 0.210). Km value at the 1-month visit was 47.23 ± 1.95, 6-month 47.87 ± 1.61, 12-month 46.39 ± 2.52 and 24-month postoperative visit 46.92 ± 1.26 (p = 0.877). The steeper K axis in the 30-day control was 78.53 ± 30.12, 6-month 77.29± 37.68, 1-year 93.13 ± 62.42, 24-month 67.31 ± 38.49 (p = 0.632).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest a low variation in the refractive outcome for patients with mild and moderate keratoconus and cataracts, without evident progression signals, a demonstrated keratoconus clinical stability. No statistically significant postoperative changes in the refractive cylinder, SE, mean K, and steeper K axis were observed, which suggests good predictability for toric IOL implant.

Intraocular lens calculations in patients with keratoectatic disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intraocular lens (IOL) calculations in patients with keratoconus and other keratoectatic disorders continues to be a challenge for today's cataract surgeon. In this article, we review data published over the past 18 months (June 2018 to January 2020).

RECENT FINDINGS

Cataract surgery in keratoconus patients has the potential to greatly improve patients' vision. However, keratoconic eyes are notorious for unpredictable outcomes because of difficulty in obtaining proper preoperative biometry and lack of data and consensus on IOL calculation formulas that can reliable in providing the desired outcome. Recent studies suggest the Barrett II Universal calculation is the most accurate in mild-to-moderate keratoconic eyes. All studies note the level of predictability decreases with the steepness of keratometric readings. Historically, the SRK/T has been shown to provide the most reliable calculations.

SUMMARY

There is still no consensus on which formula is best for IOL calculation in keratoconic eyes. On the basis of the most recent literature, we recommend using the Barrett II Universal in conjunction with the SRK/T formula for mild-to-moderate eyes. Preoperative counseling of expectations with the patient is the key to achieving a satisfied patient and avoiding an unpleasant situation in the result of refractive surprise.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with keratoconus

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

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Formulas Modified for Patients with Keratoconus

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas modified specifically for patients with keratoconus (Holladay 2 with keratoconus adjustment and Kane keratoconus formula) compared with normal IOL power formulas (Barrett Universal 2, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, and SRK/T).

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive case series.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 147 eyes of 147 patients with keratoconus.

METHODS

Data from patients with keratoconus who had preoperative IOLMaster biometry were included. A single eye per qualifying patient was randomly selected. The predicted refraction was calculated for each of the formulas and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Subgroup analysis based on the steepest corneal power measured by biometry (stage 1: ≤48 diopters [D], stage 2: >48 D and ≤53 D, and stage 3: >53 D) was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Prediction error.

RESULTS

On the basis of the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the formulas were ranked as follows: Kane keratoconus formula (0.81 D), SRK/T (1.00 D), Barrett Universal 2 (1.03 D), unmodified Kane (1.05 D), Holladay 1 (1.18 D), unmodified Holladay 2 (1.19 D), Haigis (1.22 D), Hoffer Q (1.30 D), and Holladay 2 with keratoconus adjustment (1.32 D). The Kane keratoconus formula had a statistically significant lower MAE compared with all formulas (P < 0.01). In stage 3 keratoconus, all nonmodified formulas had a hyperopic mean prediction error ranging from 1.72 to 3.02 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kane keratoconus formula was the most accurate formula in this series. The SRK/T was the most accurate of the traditional IOL formulas. All normal IOL formulas resulted in hyperopic refractive outcomes that worsened as the corneal power increased. Suggestions for target refractive aims in each stage of keratoconus are given.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Formulas in Eyes With Keratoconus

PURPOSE

To evaluate the refractive accuracy of current intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in eyes with keratoconus.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Preoperative optical biometry, Pentacam topography, and postoperative outcomes were collected from eyes with keratoconus that had uncomplicated cataract surgery between 2014 and 2018 at a single institution. Exclusion criteria include postoperative best-corrected spectacle visual acuity worse than 20/40, multifocal lens, prior ophthalmic surgeries, and prior ocular trauma. The Hoffer Q, SRK/T, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas were analyzed in each eye stratified by keratoconus severity.

RESULTS

A total of 73 eyes were included. All formulas had a positive mean predicted error ranging from 0.10 to 4.38 diopters (D). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error for stage I (n = 46, 0.445 D) and II (n = 22, 0.445 D) eyes, and the highest percentage of eyes with predicted error within ±0.50 D for both stage I (52%) and II (50%) eyes. In stage III eyes (n = 5), the Haigis formula had the lowest median predicated error (1.90 D) and the highest percentage of eyes with predicted error within ±0.50 D (40%). Corneal power measured by optical biometers was higher than measurements by Pentacam keratometry.

CONCLUSIONS

All formulas tend to have a hyperopic surprise. The Barrett Universal II formula was the most accurate for mild to moderate disease. Pentacam keratometry may help avoid hyperopic outcomes.

Current Trends in Modern Visual Intraocular Lens Enhancement Surgery in Stable Keratoconus: A Synopsis of Do's, Don'ts and Pitfalls

Keratoconus is a relatively common ectatic, non-inflammatory corneal disorder that involves gradual visual deterioration through progressive alteration of the shape of the cornea. The corneal thinning, irregular astigmatism and higher order aberrations that occur as the disease progresses pose major challenges in the visual rehabilitation of such patients. This paper summarizes the current literature regarding the results of visual enhancement procedures in patients with stable keratoconus treated with standalone anterior or posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens implantation and monofocal, toric or multifocal toric intraocular lens implantation following phacoemulsification for age-related cataract extraction or refractive lens exchange.

Intraocular lens power calculation in keratoconus; A review of literature

Purpose

To review the published literature regarding cataract surgery in keratoconus (KCN) patients with emphasis on challenges encountered during intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and their solutions.

Methods

A literature review was performed to investigate all the relevant articles on the advancements of IOL calculations in KCN patients.

Results

Cataract surgery in keratoconic eyes can improve patients' refraction, and proper patient selection and IOL calculation methods are necessary to get the best results. The main problem in KCN patients is unreliable biometric measurements. It is more difficult to make conclusions in more advanced keratoconic corneas, as the steep keratometric values in these eyes will result in the selection of a low-power IOL. Presence of a low-power IOL will yield in extreme postoperative hyperopia, and IOL exchange might be mandatory. In cases in which keratoplasty may be needed in the future, contact lens fitting can help surgeons make a better decision preoperatively. Axial length (AL) measurements may have better repeatability and reproducibility than keratometry (K) readings in keratoconic eyes. SRK II formula may provide the most accurate IOL power in mild KCN. There is still not a comprehensive consensus of which formula is the best one in moderate and severe KCN, as the literature is limited in this subject.

Conclusions

Various methods of IOL power calculation optimization and recommendations may hold the key to improve surgical outcomes in keratoconic eyes. There are multiple sources of biometric error in KCN patients, hence IOL calculation methods may not be as efficient as expected in these eyes.

Comparison of Simulated Keratometry and Total Refractive Power for Keratoconus According to the Stage of Amsler-Krumeich Classification

This study was aimed to assess the simulated keratometry (Sim K) and the total corneal refractive power (TCRP) in eyes with keratoconus with respect to the Amsler-Krumeich classification. We enrolled 100 eyes of 100 keratoconic patients and 25 age-matched normal eyes. The Sim K and TCRP were measured with a rotating Scheimpflug system (Pentacam HR, Oculus). The differences between Sim K and TCRP in the keratoconus group were significantly larger than those in the control group (p < 0.001). The differences between Sim K and TCRP became larger in the progressive stages of the disease (p = 0.191 for stage 1, p = 0.008 for stage 2, p < 0.001 for stage 3, p < 0.001 for stage 4). We found a significant correlation of Sim K with the differences between Sim K and TCRP in keratoconic patients (r = 0.497, p < 0.001). The differences between Sim K and TCRP for keratoconus were significantly larger than those for normal eyes, and the differences between Sim K and TCRP tended to become larger in the progressive stages of the disease. It is suggested that the Sim K readings overestimate the TCRP, especially in advanced keratoconus, and that this discrepancy is a possible source of a hyperopic refractive error after cataract surgery.