Comparison of Keratoconus Specific to Standard IOL Formulas in Patients With Keratoconus Undergoing Cataract Surgery

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.

Differences Between Simulated Keratometry and Total Corneal Power in Eyes With Keratoconus and a Formula to Improve IOL Power Calculation Results

PURPOSE

To compare simulated keratometry (SimK) and total corneal power (TCP) in keratoconic eyes, to determine whether the differences are systematic and predictable and to evaluate an adjusted TCP-based formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

In a consecutive series of keratoconic eyes, measurements of SimK, TCP, posterior keratometry, and anterior and posterior corneal asphericities (Q-values) were retrospectively collected. The difference between SimK and TCP was linearly correlated to the biometric parameters. In a separate sample of keratoconic eyes that had undergone cataract surgery, IOL power was calculated with the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T formulas using the SimK and an adjusted TCP power. The respective prediction errors were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 382 keratoconic eyes (271 patients) were enrolled. An increasing overestimation of SimK by TCP was detected from stage I to III, with a significant correlation between the SimK and TCP difference and SimK in the whole sample (P < .0001, r2 = 0.1322). Approximately 7% of cases presented an underestimation of SimK by TCP. IOL power calculation with the adjusted TCP improved outcomes, achieving a maximum of 80% of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopters with the Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, and Kane formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SimK overestimated TCP. Such a difference could not be predicted by any variable. The proposed TCP-adjustment formula (TCPadj = TCP + 0.56 diopters) in keratoconic eyes for IOL power calculation might be valuable for improving refractive outcomes. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(4):e253-e259.].

Development of a Web-Based Algorithm for Understanding the Intraocular Lens-Based Surgery in Stable and Progressing Keratoconus for Non-Specialist Ophthalmologists

PURPOSE

To propose an algorithm to facilitate lens-based surgery in keratoconus.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to prepare a software algorithm based on cone location, stability, best spectacle-corrected distance visual acuity (BSCVA) level and whether there is a clear or cataractous lens. The software usability was assessed through a 10-question questionnaire and two hypothetical keratoconus case histories (moderately simple and moderately complex) given to 15 trainees. The usability questionnaires were graded on a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and two case histories (1 = very difficult to 7 = very easy).

RESULTS

The algorithm can be found at https://www.sussexeyelaserclinic.co.uk/keratoconus/. Thirteen trainees completed the questionnaire. 91.9% would frequently use it; for 100%, it was easy to use independently without technical support; for 63.7%, it was strongly integrated; for 100%, it was consistent; 100% thought that most people would learn to use it quickly, 91.9% found the system not cumbersome to use, felt very confident to use it and need not learn a lot to use it. The first case was found easy by 63.7% and the second by 45%.

CONCLUSION

We present an algorithm as a guide for lens-based surgery in stable and progressing keratoconus, which is classified based on cone location. This algorithm will help trainee and "non-specialist" ophthalmic surgeons understand the pre-operative planning for the surgery and referral to the "specialist" corneal surgeon, considering factors such as progression, BSCVA, keratometry, topography and apex location of the cone in keratoconus patients.