Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after small-incision lenticule extraction for myopia

Assessing the predictability of five intraocular lens calculation methods in eyes with prior myopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the predictability of five methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with prior keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) for the treatment of myopia.

METHODS

A retrospective case study included 100 eyes of 52 patients who underwent myopia and myopia with astigmatism treatment with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative measurements of optical biometry and corneal tomography were obtained. The spherical equivalent of the refractive change induced by surgery was converted to the corneal plane (SMILE-dif). A physically well-defined method was developed in which the same IOL model was implanted before and after SMILE. IOL power was calculated using ray-tracing (RT-Sirius), and several IOL power calculation formulas (Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II Formula, Hoffer QST) before surgery. After surgery, IOL power was calculated with RT-Sirius, Kane using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm by ray tracing, EVO 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK, Barrett True K and Hoffer QST Post Myopic LASIK/PRK after surgery. The difference between the refractive error induced by the IOL before and after SMILE in the corneal plane (IOL-dif) was compared with SMILE-dif. The predicted error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-dif and IOL-dif.

RESULTS

The PE obtained was 0.26 ± 0.55 diopters (D), 0.10 ± 0.45 D, 0.40 ± 0.37 D, -0.03 ± 0.36 D, 0.02 ± 0.51 D, with RT-Sirius, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett True K, and Hoffer QST respectively. PE was not statistically significantly different between Barrett True K and Hoffer QST, with differences being more homogeneous with Barrett, (variance σ2 = 0,13). The absolute EP obtained with Barrett True K achieved 84% of cases within ± 0.5 D, followed by Kane (72%), Hoffer QST (65%), EVO (61%) and RT-Sirius (59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for the correction of myopia.

KEY MESSAGES

What is known The literature regarding IOL power calculation after SMILE is sparse, and the methods used to estimate corneal power following LASIK/PRK may not be applicable to SMILE procedures. The most common approach to investigating the predictability of IOL calculation formulas involves a theoretical model encompassing the virtual implantation of an IOL. What is new The Hoffer QST formula, Kane formula using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm, EVO 2.0, and Sirius' Ray Tracing software had not been previously evaluated using this approach. The Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for myopia correction, outperforming Ray Tracing.

[Basic aspects of IOL calculation]

IOL calculation can now be considered a solved problem. However, the problem of sharing the knowledge of the underlying physical and mathematical basics is still unsolved. Also, the necessary hard- and software tools for an IOL calculation approximating the accuracy of prescribed glasses are not yet generally available. The aim of this survey is a clarification of the basics and of some historical pitfalls that still lead to persisting misunderstandings.

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.

Intraocular lens power calculation using total keratometry and ray tracing in eyes with previous small incision lenticule extraction - A case series

Purpose

To assess the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes using ray tracing and a range of total keratometry based IOL calculation formulae.

Observations

Ray tracing showed excellent predictability in IOL power calculation after SMILE and its accuracy was clinically comparable with the Barrett TK Universal II and Haigis TK formula.

Conclusions and importance

Incorporating posterior corneal curvature measurements into IOL power calculation after SMILE seems prudent. The ray tracing method as well as selected TK-based formulae yielded excellent accuracy and should be favored in post-SMILE eyes.

Theoretical Accuracy of the Raytracing Method for Intraocular Calculation of Lens Power in Myopic Eyes after Small Incision Extraction of the Lenticule

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the raytracing method for the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in myopic eyes after small incision extraction of the lenticule (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective study. All patients undergoing surgery for myopic SMILE between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with Scheimpflug tomography optical biometry were eligible for inclusion. Manifest refraction was performed before and 6 months after refractive surgery. One eye from each patient was included in the final analysis. A theoretical model was invited to predict the accuracy of multiple methods of lens power calculation by comparing the IOL-induced refractive error at the corneal plane (IOL-Dif) and the SMILE-induced change of spherical equivalent (SMILE-Dif) before and after SMILE surgery. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-Dif-IOL-Dif. IOL power calculations were performed using raytracing (Olsen Raytracing, Pentacam AXL, software version 1.22r05, Wetzlar, Germany) and other formulae with historical data (Barrett True-K, Double-K SRK/T, Masket, Modified Masket) and without historical data (Barrett True-K no history, Haigis-L, Hill Potvin Shammas PM, Shammas-PL) for the same IOL power and model. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed in different anterior chamber depths, axial lengths, back-to-front corneal radius ratio, keratometry, lens thickness, and preoperative spherical equivalents.

RESULTS

A total of 70 eyes of 70 patients were analyzed. The raytracing method had the smallest mean absolute PE (0.26 ± 0.24 D) and median absolute PE (0.16 D), and also had the largest percentage of eyes within a PE of ± 0.25 D (64.3%), ± 0.50 D (81.4%), ± 0.75 D (95.7%), and ± 1.00 D (100.0%). The raytracing method was significantly better than Double-K SRK/T, Haigis, Haigis-L, and Shammas-PL formulae in postoperative refraction prediction (all p < 0.001), but not better than the following formulae: Barrett True-K (p = 0.314), Barrett True-K no history (p = 0.163), Masket (p = 1.0), Modified Masket (p = 0.806), and Hill Potvin Shammas PM (p = 0.286). Subgroup analysis showed that refractive outcomes exhibited no statistically significant differences in the raytracing method (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Raytracing was the most accurate method in predicting target refraction and had a good consistency in calculating IOL power for myopic eyes after SMILE.

Cataract surgery after corneal refractive surgery: preoperative considerations and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Corneal refractive surgery (CRS) is one of the most popular eye procedures, with more than 40 million cases performed globally. As CRS-treated patients age and develop cataract, the number of cases that require additional preoperative considerations and management will increase around the world. Thus, we provide an up-to-date, concise overview of the considerations and outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes with previous CRS, including surface ablation, laser in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

RECENT FINDINGS

Challenges associated with accurate biometry in eyes with CRS have been mitigated recently through total keratometry, ray tracing, intraoperative aberrometry, and machine learning assisted intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas to improve prediction. Emerging studies have highlighted the superior performance of ray tracing and/or total keratometry-based formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous SMILE. Dry eye remains a common side effect after cataract surgery, especially in eyes with CRS, though the risk appears to be lower after SMILE than LASIK (in the short-term). Recent presbyopia-correcting IOL designs such as extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOLs may be suitable in carefully selected eyes with previous CRS.

SUMMARY

Ophthalmologists will increasingly face challenges associated with the surgical management of cataract in patients with prior CRS. Careful preoperative assessment of the ocular surface, appropriate use of IOL power calculation formulas, and strategies for presbyopia correction are key to achieve good clinical and refractive outcomes and patient satisfaction. Recent advances in CRS techniques, such as SMILE, may pose new challenges for such eyes in the future.

An update on intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an ever-growing body of research regarding intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). This review intends to summarize recent data and offer updated recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Postmyopic LASIK/PRK eyes have the best refractive outcomes when multiple methods are averaged, or when Barrett True-K is used. Posthyperopic LASIK/PRK eyes also seem to do best when Barrett True-K is used, but with more variable results. With both aforementioned methods, using measured total corneal power incrementally improves results. For post-SMILE eyes, the first nontheoretical data favors raytracing.

SUMMARY

Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery are less accurate and more variable compared to virgin eyes. Surgeons may simplify their approach to IOL power calculations in postmyopic and posthyperopic LASIK/PRK by using Barrett True-K, and employing measured total corneal power when available. For post-SMILE eyes, ray tracing seems to work well, but lack of accessibility may hamper its adoption.

Cataract surgery following refractive surgery: Principles to achieve optical success and patient satisfaction

A growing number of patients with prior refractive surgery are now presenting for cataract surgery. Surgeons face a number of unique challenges in this patient population that tends to be highly motivated to retain or regain functional uncorrected acuity postoperatively. Primary challenges include recognition of the specific type of prior surgery, use of appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, matching IOL style with spherical aberration profile, the recognition of corneal imaging patterns that are and are not compatible with toric and/or presbyopia-correcting lens implantation, and surgical technique modifications, which are particularly relevant in eyes with prior radial keratotomy or phakic IOL implantation. Despite advancements in IOL power formulae, corneal imaging, and IOL options that have improved our ability to achieve targeted postoperative refractive outcomes, accuracy and predictability remain inferior to eyes that undergo cataract surgery without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Thus, preoperative evaluation of patients who will and will not be candidates for postoperative refractive surgical enhancements is also paramount. We provide an overview of the specific challenges in this population and offer evidence-based strategies and considerations for optimizing surgical outcomes.

Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes

As of 2021, over 2.8 million small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedures have been performed in China. However, knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula for post-SMILE cataract patients remains limited. This study included 52 eyes of 26 myopic patients from northern China who underwent SMILE at Tianjin Eye Hospital from September 2022 to February 2023 to investigate the suitability of multiple IOL calculation formulas in post-SMILE patients using a theoretical surgical model. We compared the postoperative results obtained from three artificial intelligence (AI)-based formulas and six conventional formulas provided by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS). These formulas were applied to calculate IOL power using both total keratometry (TK) and keratometry (K) values, and the results were compared to the preoperative results obtained from the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula for the SMILE patients. Among the evaluated formulas, the results obtained from the Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 Formula with TK (EVO-TK) (0.40 ± 0.29 D, range 0-1.23 D), Barrett True K with K formula (BTK-K, 0.41 ± 0.26 D, range 0.01-1.19 D), and Masket with K formula (Masket-K, 0.44 ± 0.33 D, range 0.02-1.39 D) demonstrated the closest proximity to BUII. Notably, the highest proportion of prediction errors within 0.5 D was observed with the BTK-K (71.15%), EVO-TK (69.23%), and Masket-K (67.31%), with the BTK-K showing a significantly higher proportion than the Masket-K (p < 0.001). Our research indicates that in post-SMILE patients, the EVO-TK, BTK-K, and Masket-K may yield more accurate calculation results. At their current stage in development, AI-based formulas do not demonstrate significant advantages over conventional formulas. However, the application of historical data can enhance the performance of these formulas.

Comparative analysis of IOL power calculations in postoperative refractive surgery patients: a theoretical surgical model for FS-LASIK and SMILE procedures

BACKGROUND

As the two most prevalent refractive surgeries in China, there is a substantial number of patients who have undergone Femtosecond Laser-assisted In Situ Keratomileusis (FS-LASIK) and Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures. However, there is still limited knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for these patients with a history of FS-LASIK or SMILE.

METHODS

A total of 100 eyes from 50 postoperative refractive surgery patients were included in this prospective cohort study, with 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone FS-LASIK and 25 individuals (50 eyes) having undergone SMILE. We utilized a theoretical surgical model to simulate the IOL implantation process in postoperative FS-LASIK and SMILE patients. Subsequently, we performed comprehensive biological measurements both before and after the surgeries, encompassing demographic information, corneal biometric parameters, and axial length. Various formulas, including the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula, as a baseline, were employed to calculate IOL power for the patients.

RESULTS

The Barrett True K (BTK) formula, demonstrated an mean absolute error (AE) within 0.5 D for both FS-LASIK and SMILE groups (0.28 ± 0.25 D and 0.36 ± 0.24 D, respectively). Notably, the FS-LASIK group showed 82% of results differing by less than 0.25 D compared to preoperative BUII results. The Barrett True K No History (BTKNH) formula, which also incorporates measured posterior corneal curvature, performed similarly to BTK in both groups. Additionally, the Masket formula, relying on refractive changes based on empirical experience, displayed promising potential for IOL calculations in SMILE patients compared with BTK (p = 0.411).

CONCLUSION

The study reveals the accuracy and stability of the BTK and BTKNH formulas for IOL power calculations in myopic FS-LASIK/SMILE patients. Moreover, the Masket formula shows encouraging results in SMILE patients. These findings contribute to enhancing the predictability and success of IOL power calculations in patients with a history of refractive surgery, providing valuable insights for clinical practice. Further research and larger sample sizes are warranted to validate and optimize the identified formulas for better patient outcomes.

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

Accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens power after small-incision lenticule extraction

Purpose

The study aimed to assess the accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

Methods

For the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye, the IOL power targeting the pre-SMILE eyes' lowest myopic refractive error was used. The FY-L formula, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical Formula (EVO-L), the Barrett True-K no history, and the Shammas-L, respectively, were used to calculate the predicted refractive error of target IOL power. A comparison was made between the change in spherical equivalent induced by SMILE (SMILE-Dif) and the variance between IOL-Dif (IOL-Induced Refractive Error) before and after SMILE. The prediction error (PE) was defined as SMILE-Dif minus IOL-Dif. The proportion of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D, the numerical and absolute prediction errors (PEs and AEs), and the median absolute error (MedAE) were compared.

Results

In total, 80 eyes from 42 patients who underwent SMILE were included in the study. The FY-L formula generated the sample's lowest mean PE (0.06 ± 0.76 D), MAE (0.58 ± 0.50 D), and MedAE (0.47 D), respectively. The PEs in ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D comprised 28.8%, 46.3%, 70.0%, and 87.5%, respectively, for the FY-L formula. Compared to other formulas, the FY-L formula produced the highest value with PEs for the percentage of eyes in ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the FY-L formula provides satisfactory outcomes in estimating the IOL power in the eyes after SMILE.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas with and without total keratometry and ray tracing in patients with previous myopic SMILE

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prediction error (PE) variance and absolute median PE of different intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas including last-generation formulas such as Barrett True-K with K, Okulix and total keratometry (TK)-based calculations with Haigis, and Barrett True-K in a simulation model in post-small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) eyes.

SETTINGS

Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective study.

METHODS

Preoperative measurements included IOL power calculation before and after SMILE surgery. The target refraction was set to be the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes. The IOL power targeting at the lowest myopic refractive error in pre-SMILE eyes was selected for the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye. The difference between the predicted refraction of pre- and post-SMILE eyes with the same IOL power was defined as IOL difference. The refractive change induced by SMILE was defined as the difference between preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction.

RESULTS

98 eyes from 49 patients underwent bilateral myopic SMILE. The PE variance of Okulix was not significantly different compared with Barrett True-K with TK ( P = .471). The SDs of the mean PEs were ±0.413 D (Haigis-TK), ±0.453 D (Okulix), ±0.471 D (Barrett True-K with TK), ±0.556 D (Haigis-L), and ±0.576 D (Barrett True-K with K). The mean absolute PE was 0.340 D, 0.353 D, 0.404 D, 0.511 D, and 0.715 D for Haigis-TK, Okulix, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K, and Haigis-L, respectively. The highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D was achieved by Okulix, followed by Haigis-TK, Barrett True-K with TK, Barrett True-K with K, and Haigis-L.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that Haigis in combination with TK, Okulix, and Barrett True-K with and without TK offer good options for accurate IOL power calculation after SMILE. Haigis-L showed a tendency for myopic shift in eyes after previous SMILE.

IOL Power Calculations and Cataract Surgery in Eyes with Previous Small Incision Lenticule Extraction

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), with over 5 million procedures globally performed, will challenge ophthalmologists in the foreseeable future with accurate intraocular lens power calculations in an ageing population. After more than one decade since the introduction of SMILE, only one case report of cataract surgery with IOL implantation after SMILE is present in the peer-reviewed literature. Hence, the scope of the present multicenter study was to compare the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes between ray tracing and a range of empirically optimized formulae available in the ASCRS post-keratorefractive surgery IOL power online calculator. In our study of 11 post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery, ray tracing showed the smallest mean absolute error (0.40 D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 D (82/91%). The next best conventional formula was the Potvin–Hill formula with a mean absolute error of 0.66 D and an ±0.50/±1.00 D accuracy of 45 and 73%, respectively. Analyzing this first cohort of post-SMILE eyes undergoing cataract surgery and IOL implantation, ray tracing showed superior predictability in IOL power calculation over empirically optimized IOL power calculation formulae that were originally intended for use after Excimer-based keratorefractive procedures.

Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery: Challenges, approaches, and outcomes

In eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery, difficulties in accurately determining corneal refractive power and in predicting the effective lens position create challenges in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. There are three categories of methods proposed based on the use of historical data acquired prior to the corneal refractive surgery. The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery postrefractive IOL calculator incorporates many commonly used methods. Accuracy of refractive prediction errors within ± 0.5 D is achieved in 0% to 85% of eyes with previous myopic LASIK/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), 38.1% to 71.9% of eyes with prior hyperopic LASIK/PRK, and 29% to 87.5% of eyes with previous radial keratotomy. IOLs with negative spherical aberration (SA) may reduce the positive corneal SA induced by myopic correction, and IOLs with zero SA best match corneal SA in eyes with prior hyperopic correction. Toric, extended-depth-of-focus, and multifocal IOLs may provide excellent outcomes in selected cases that meet certain corneal topographic criteria. Further advances are needed to improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery

Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after corneal refractive surgery (CRS) becomes an expanding challenge for ophthalmologists as more and more cataract surgeries after CRS are required. These patients typically also have high expectations as to visual performance. Conventional IOL power calculation schemes frequently provide inaccurate results in these cases. This review aims to summarize and recommend currently available IOL power calculation methods for eyes with the most common CRS methods: radial keratotomy (RK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). To this end, biometry measuring methods and IOL formulas will be explained and combinations of both are proposed. In synopsis, it is evident that the latest generation of vergence formulas exhibit favorable IOL power prediction accuracy in post-CRS eyes, even though the predictive precision of methods in eyes without CRS is not attained. Ray tracing computation, intraoperative aberrometry, and machine learning–based formulas hold potential to further improve refractive outcomes in post-CRS eyes.

Advancements in intraocular lens power calculation formulas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review recent studies comparing intraocular lens (IOL) formulas with an emphasis on selection of the highest performing formulas based on patient axial length, age, and history of previous corneal refractive surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Barrett Universal II formula based on a theoretical model has consistently demonstrated high accuracy. The Olsen four-factor formula using ray tracing optics and the Hill-RBF calculator using artificial intelligence have also demonstrated good prediction results after being updated. Notably, the Kane formula, incorporating artificial intelligence, has overall shown the best performance for all axial lengths. Although newly developed and updated IOL formulas have improved refractive prediction in patients with short or long axial length eyes or prior history of corneal refractive surgery, these challenging cases still require special consideration. The Barrett True-K formula has shown accurate results regardless of preoperative data in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery.

SUMMARY

Advancements in optical biometry and IOL calculation formulas continue to improve refractive outcomes. The clinician can optimize refractive outcomes in the majority of patients with the use of formulas that have shown consistent results and accuracy in several large studies.

Corneal power measurements by ray tracing in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction for myopia with a combined Scheimpflug Camera-Placido disk topographer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of the measurements of corneal power obtained by ray tracing with a combined Scheimpflug camera-Placido disk corneal topographer (Sirius) in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction for myopia (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective cases study includes 50 eyes of 50 patients who underwent myopic SMILE. Mean value of simulated keratometry (K_post), mean pupil power (MPP) (ray tracing, diameter of the entrance pupil range 3-6 mm), anterior and posterior corneal radius, and corneal thickness were obtained with Sirius topographer preoperatively and three months postoperatively, as well as cycloplegic refraction. True net power, equivalent keratometry readings, and Haigis equivalent power formula were calculated, and these measurements, MPP and K_post, were compared with the corneal power calculated with the clinical history method (CHM).

RESULTS

Corneal power measurements obtained with all methods were significantly different from CHM (P < 0.001), except the value of MPP obtained at 5.5 mm (P = 0.927). A good direct correlation was found between CHM and all measurements. The distribution of differences as compared with the CHM showed that the lowest difference corresponded to the value of MMP at 5.5 mm (- 0.002 ± 0.6). The Bland-Altman plots for the MPP at 5.5 mm showed 95% limits of agreement between - 1.1787 D and 1.1741 D.

CONCLUSIONS

MPP obtained by ray tracing within a diameter of entrance pupil of 5.5 mm could predict corrected corneal power derived from the CHM in eyes following SMILE surgery.