Comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculations for cataract surgery in eyes after phototherapeutic keratectomy

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas.

RESULTS

Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas (P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and enhance IOL power calculation for this patient group.

Precision in IOL Calculation for Cataract Patients with Prior History of Combined RK and LASIK Histories

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae for eyes that have undergone both radial keratotomy (RK) and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery to determine the efficacy of various IOL calculations for this unique patient group. Currently, research on this surgical topic is limited.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 11 eyes from 7 individuals with a history of RK and LASIK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision were analyzed. Preoperative biometric and corneal topographic measurements were performed. Subjective refraction was obtained postoperatively. Twelve different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were used: Barrett True K No History, Barrett True K (prior LASIK, Prior RK history), Barrett Universal 2, Camellin-Calossi-Camellin (3C), Double K-Modified Holladay, Haigis-L, Galilei, OCT, PEARL-DGS, Potvin-Hill, Panacea, and Shammas.

Results

The rankings of mean arithmetic error (MAE), from least to greatest, were as follows: 3C (0.088), Haigis-L-L (-0.508), Shammas (-0.516), OCT Average (-0.538), Barrett True K (-0.557), OCT RK (-0.563), Galilei (-0.570), IOL Master (-0.571), OCT LASIK (-0.583), Barrett True K No History (-0.597), Pearl-DGS (-0.606), Potvin-Hill SF (-0.770), Potvin-Hill TNP (-0.778), Panacea (-0.876), and Barrett Universal 2 (-1.522). The 3C formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D of target range (91%), while Haigis-L, Shammas, Galilei, Potvin Hill, Barrett True K, IOL Master, PEARL-DGS, and OCT formulae performed similarly, achieving 45% of eyes within ±0.75D of target refraction.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the accuracy of the lesser known 3C formula in IOL calculation, particularly for patients who have undergone both RK and LASIK. Well-known formulae, such as Haigis-L, Shammas, and Galilei, which are used by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), are viable options, although 3C formulae should be considered in this patient population. Furthermore, larger studies can confirm the best IOL power formulas for post-RK and LASIK cataract patients.

Comparison of the Predictive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Phototherapeutic Keratectomy in Granular Corneal Dystrophy Type 2

Granular corneal dystrophy type 2 (GCD2) is an autosomal dominant disease affecting vision. Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) is advantageous in removing vision-threatening corneal opacities and postponing keratoplasty; however, it potentially disturbs accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. The myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method with or without the central island has been reported; nevertheless, an optimal method has not yet been established. To compare the predictive accuracy of post-PTK IOL power calculations in GCD2, the retrospective data of 30 eyes from July 2017 to December 2020 were analyzed. All GCD2-affected eyes underwent post-PTK standard cataract surgery using the WaveLight EX500 platform (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) under a single surgeon. The mean prediction error (MPE) and absolute error (MAE) with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K, Haigis, and SRK/T by standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK), where possible, were analyzed. Barrett Universal II and SRK/T showed significantly superior MPE, and MAE compared with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method. TK was not significantly superior to K in the same formula. In conclusion, this study suggests that these biometries and formulas, especially Barrett Universal II and SRK/T, are potentially useful in IOL power calculation in GCD2 after PTK.

Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after phototherapeutic keratectomy

PURPOSE

To compare the predictability of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using several corneal power measurements in eyes that underwent phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical charts of 42 eyes of 25 consecutive patients who underwent cataract surgery after PTK for granular corneal dystrophy or band keratopathy. IOL power calculations were performed using the SRK/T formula with four corneal power measurements [automated keratometry (AK) measured with a partial coherence interferometer, simulated keratometry (Sim K), true net power (TNP), and total corneal refractive power (TCRP) measured with a rotating Scheimpflug camera]; we determined the prediction error, absolute error, and percentage within ± 1.0 D of the targeted refraction, 1 month postoperatively.

RESULTS

The prediction error in the TCRP group was significantly better than those in the AK, Sim K, and TNP groups. The absolute error was also significantly better than those in the AK and Sim K groups, but not significantly different from that in the TNP group. The percentages of within ± 0.5 and 1.0 D in the TCRP group were significantly higher than those in the AK and Sim K groups, but not significantly different from that in the TNP group.

CONCLUSIONS

The TCRP provides the highest predictability of IOL power calculation in post-PTK eyes. This result suggests that the use of the TCRP, rather than of conventional anterior keratometry, may be clinically helpful for improving the refractive accuracy of post-PTK eyes.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Newer Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods in Eyes That Underwent Previous Phototherapeutic Keratectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using ray tracing software in patients who had undergone phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK).

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, 37 eyes of 22 patients (mean age: 69.4 years; range: 56 to 85 years) who underwent cataract surgery after PTK were reviewed. The prediction error, defined as the difference between the estimated postoperative spherical equivalent and the postoperative manifest refraction at the spectacle plane, was calculated using the following formulas: OKULIX (Tedics, Dortmund, Germany), PhacoOptics (IOL Innovations ApS, Aarhus, Denmark), Barrett True K No History (NH), and Camellin-Calossi. The PhacoOptics formula was used in three different ways: historical method (H), no history method (NH), and C-constant method (C). The median values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors among these six IOL calculation methods were compared.

RESULTS

The median arithmetic errors (in diopters [D]) and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the absolute errors were as follows: OKULIX (0.33, range: -2.20 to 2.50, 30.6%), PhacoOptics (H) (-0.12, range: -3.28 to 4.85, 22.2%), PhacoOptics (NH) (-0.25, range: -2.08 to 1.70, 48.4%), PhacoOptics (C) (0.04, range: -1.40 to 2.18, 48.5%), Barrett True K (NH) (-0.35, range: -1.90 to 1.89, 48.6%), and Camellin-Calossi (-0.19, range: -1.78 to 1.47, 59.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PhacoOptics, especially the C-constant method (C), and Camellin-Calossi formulas were good options for calculating IOL powers in eyes that underwent PTK. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):310-316.].