Intraocular Lens power calculation after laser refractive surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

This retrospective study compared postoperative prediction errors of recent formulas using standard- or total keratometry (K or TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic LASIK patients. It included 56 eyes of 56 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery, with at least 1-month follow-up at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo or Hayashi Eye Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. Prediction errors, absolute errors, and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated using nine formulas: Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K TK, Haigis-L, Haigis TK, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, Hoffer QST PK, EVO K, and EVO PK. Statistical comparisons utilized Friedman test, Conover's all-pairs post-hoc, Cochran's Q, and McNemar post-hoc testing. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) was compared with heteroscedastic testing. Barrett True-K TK had the lowest median predicted refractive error (-0.01). EVO PK had the smallest median absolute error (0.20). EVO PK had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D of the predicted value (58.9%), significantly better than Haigis-L (p = 0.047). EVO PK had the lowest mean RMSE value (0.499). The EVO PK formula yielded the most accurate IOL power calculation in post-myopic LASIK eyes, with TK/PK values enhancing accuracy.

Discriminant prediction equation using an optical biometer for identifying postmyopic laser vision correction eyes

PURPOSE

To create an equation for identifying postmyopic laser vision correction (M-LVC) eyes by using corneal shape parameters in a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer and verify its accuracy.

SETTING

Nagoya Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Japan.

DESIGN

Retrospective evaluation of a screening approach.

METHODS

Control participants were selected retrospectively from patients who visited the clinic for cataract surgery or refractive surgery. M-LVC patients were selected retrospectively from patients who visited the clinic for cataract surgery or M-LVC postoperative checkups. The control and post-M-LVC patients with keratometric values between 39 diopters (D) and 43 D were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomly assigned to equation-creation and validation groups in a 2:1 ratio. To discriminate post-M-LVC patients from control participants, multiple logistic regression analysis was performed with the corneal shape parameters from the optical biometer as independent variables.

RESULTS

The M-LVC and control groups consisted of 90 eyes from 90 patients and 97 eyes from 97 patients, respectively. The average keratometry (Ave-K) values did not differ significantly between the control and M-LVC groups ( P = .187). The multiple logistic analysis identified the asymmetry component (regression coefficient, 5.357; odds ratio, 212.158) and corneal eccentricity index (regression coefficient, -5.088; odds ratio, 0.006) as explanatory variables. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the predictive equation-creation group was 0.946. The sensitivity and specificity in the validation group were 93.3% and 87.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The M-LVC discriminant prediction equation with the topography-equipped SS-OCT biometer was effective in detecting post-M-LVC eyes with high accuracy.

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

PURPOSE

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

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Presbyopia correction using the monocular bi-aspheric ablation profile in myopic eyes

PURPOSE

To analyze the 6-month outcomes of the treatment combination of the monocular bi-aspheric ablation profile (PresbyMAX) and contralateral aspheric monofocal laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) ablation profile for correction of myopia and presbyopia.

SETTING

Yonsei University College of Medicine and Eyereum Eye Clinic, Seoul, South Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case review of 92 patients (184 eyes) diagnosed with myopia who underwent uneventful simultaneous bi-aspheric ablation in the nondominant eye and aspheric monofocal regular LASIK in the dominant eye to correct myopia and presbyopia between January 2017 and August 2020. Monocular and binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and near visual acuity (UNVA), and corrected distance visual acuity and near visual acuity were analyzed postoperatively.

RESULTS

At 6 months postoperatively, the mean UDVAs (logMAR) in the dominant and nondominant eyes were 0.01 ± 0.02 and 0.26 ± 0.15, respectively. Furthermore, all treated dominant eyes achieved 20/20 or better monocular UDVA, and 84% achieved 20/16 or better monocular UDVA. In the nondominant treated eyes, 89% achieved 20/50 or better monocular UDVA, 78% achieved 20/40 or better, and 34% achieved 20/32 or better. The binocular cumulative UDVA at 6 months postoperatively was 20/20 or better in all patients. All patients achieved J2 or better in binocular cumulative UNVA, and 83% achieved J1.

CONCLUSIONS

Presbyopia correction using the combination of PresbyMAX in the near eye and aspheric monofocal regular LASIK in the distant eye is a safe and effective treatment for presbyopia in patients with myopia.

Small Aperture IC-8 Extended-Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction of small aperture IC-8 IOLs in cataract patients with or without prior ocular events. A systematic review of full-length original English studies reporting the visual results of small aperture IC-8 IOL implantation after cataract surgery in three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The Quality Assessment Tool for case series studies from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was used to analyze the quality of the studies selected. The search provided 543 articles, of which 22 were included in this systematic review. Significant improvements in uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA); uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA); perception of photic phenomena; and patient satisfaction have been reported. Unilateral and bilateral small aperture IC-8 IOL implantation reduces photic phenomena and provides good vision for all distances with high patient satisfaction and minimal postoperative complications. Therefore, the implantation of this IOL may be recommended for patients with cataracts, corneal irregularities and ocular trauma with partial aniridia.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Die senile Katarakt

Die Vorstellung der alten Griechen war, dass eine trübe Flüssigkeit über das Auge herabrinne – daher die vom Verb καταρρηγνυναι = herabfließen hergeleitete Bezeichnung. Diese Auffassung zur Pathophysiologie der Katarakt hat sich heute grundlegend geändert.

Die senile Katarakt

Die Vorstellung der alten Griechen war, dass eine trübe Flüssigkeit über das Auge herabrinne – daher die vom Verb καταρρηγνυναι = herabfließen hergeleitete Bezeichnung. Diese Auffassung zur Pathophysiologie der Katarakt hat sich heute grundlegend geändert.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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