A Comparative Study of Total Corneal Power Using a Ray Tracing Method Obtained from 3 Different Scheimpflug Camera Devices

The Effects of Whole-Corneal and Whole-Eye Higher Order Aberrations on the Discrepancy Between Refractive and Corneal Astigmatism in Otherwise Healthy Candidates for Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of different whole-corneal and whole-eye higher order aberrations (HOAs) on levels of axis discrepancy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including healthy candidates for refractive surgery, with one eye being randomly selected. A total of 360 eyes were included. Whole-corneal and whole-eye HOAs were measured twice with a Pentacam AXL Wave (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH), and subjective manifest refraction was obtained. Axis discrepancy was defined as the absolute difference between Total Corneal Refractive Power flat keratometry axis and manifest refractive axis. Two multiple linear regression models that sought to explore the effect of HOAs in predicting axis discrepancy while adjusting for corneal and refractive confounders were built.

RESULTS

Mean age was 29.1 ± 5.8 years and 63.9% of the patients were women. Mean manifest sphere and cylinder were -3.09 ± 2.36 and -1.45 ± 1.37 diopters (D), respectively. Mean cylinder axis discrepancy was 14.4 ± 14.5°. On multiple linear regression, the only variables significantly associated with axis discrepancy were corneal cylinder and corneal lower order aberrations [F(5,339) = 29.746; P < .001; adjusted R2 = 0.295]. Lower levels of corneal cylinder are by far the main contributor to astigmatism axis mismatch (ß = -1.164). There was not a single HOA, either corneal or ocular, that significantly loaded into any models.

CONCLUSIONS

Astigmatism axis mismatch decreases rapidly with increasing levels of corneal astigmatism. Corneal and whole-eye HOAs have no role in astigmatism axis mismatch in healthy candidates for refractive surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(2):e89-e97.].

Comparison of Corneal Power Difference Maps with Achieved Myopic Correction Using Scheimpflug Tomography After LASIK, PRK, and SMILE

Purpose

To compare corneal power difference maps (∆maps) obtained from the Pentacam in patients with 1 year follow-up after LASIK, PRK, and SMILE with further stratification to low, moderate, and high myopia.

Patients and methods

This retrospective study was comprised of patients who had preoperative and 1-year postoperative power maps that were obtained-front sagittal (SagF), refractive power (RP), true net power (TNP), and total corneal refractive power (TCRP)-for evaluation. Measurements were recorded and compared at the 4mm, 5mm and 6mm pupil and apex zones. Comparisons were made between each specific power ∆map and the surgically induced refractive change (SIRC). Further analysis of the ∆maps was performed based on degree of myopia (high, moderate, and low). Correlation and agreement were also assessed with regression and limits of agreement (LoA).

Results

There were 172 eyes in the LASIK group, 187 eyes in the PRK group, and 46 eyes in the SMILE group. In the LASIK group, TNP ∆map at 5mm pupil zone had the least absolute mean difference with SIRC (0.007 ± 0.42D). In the PRK group, TNP ∆map at 5mm apex zone was most accurate compared to SIRC (0.066 ± 0.45D). In the SMILE group, TCRP ∆map at 4mm apex zone had the closest absolute value when compared to SIRC (0.011 ± 0.50D). There was good correlation and agreement for all three surgery groups, LASIK: r = 0.975, LoA -0.83D to +0.83D, PRK: r = 0.96, LoA -0.83D and +0.95D, and SMILE: r = 0.922, LoA -0.97 D to +0.99D.

Conclusion

TNP ∆maps most accurately measured corneal power in the LASIK and PRK groups while TCRP ∆maps were most accurate in the SMILE group. The degree of myopia may change which ∆map is most accurate.

Agreement between Scheimpflug Camera and the Swept-source Optical Coherence Tomography Measurements in Keratometry and Higher-order Aberrations

PURPOSE

To evaluate the compatibility of corneal curvature and astigmatism, and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) measured by the Scheimpflug camera Pentacam HR and the swept-source optical coherence tomography ANTERION.

METHODS

This prospective study included normal subjects with no ophthalmic history. Steep keratometry (K), flat K, astigmatism and its axis of the anterior and posterior surfaces, total corneal power, and HOAs using the two instruments were compared. To compare the mean values of the measurements, a paired t-test was used. Bland-Altman analysis was applied to assess the agreement between the two devices.

RESULTS

Fifty-three eyes of 53 subjects were evaluated. There were statistically significant differences for steep K, astigmatism, and vector J0, J45 in the anterior surface and total corneal power between the two devices (p &lt; 0.05). There were also significant differences in the most of the keratometric values of the posterior corneal surface (p &lt; 0.05) except J0 (p = 0.410). Both devices showed strong positive correlations in steep K, flat K, astigmatism (r &gt; 0.81, p &lt; 0.001) with wide ranges of a 95% limit of agreement. Vectoral components were significantly correlated (r &gt; 0.78, p &lt; 0.001) with narrow 95% limit of agreement, except J45 of the posterior surface (r = 0.39, p = 0.004). In the corneal HOAs, there were statistically significant differences in the vertical coma, horizontal trefoil, spherical aberration, and root mean square of each fifth- and sixth-order Zernike coefficient (p = 0.043, p = 0.041, p &lt; 0.001, p &lt; 0.001, and p &lt; 0.001, respectively). Other HOAs showed moderate to strong positive correlations (r &gt; 0.37, p &lt; 0.05). Most HOAs, except for the horizontal trefoil, showed clinically acceptable agreements. The total root mean square of HOAs was not significantly different between the two devices (p = 0.122).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the keratometric values cannot be used interchangeably. However, the vectoral component of astigmatism showed clinically good agreement. Several HOAs have statistically significant differences; however, almost all HOAs showed acceptable agreements, except for the horizontal trefoil.

Comparison of total keratometry with corneal power measured by optical low-coherence reflectometry and placido-dual Scheimpflug system

PURPOSE

To compare the total keratometry (TK) and astigmatism measurements in eyes with cataract using automated keratometry of swept-source optical coherence tomography (ss-OCT), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), simulated keratometry (SimK), and total corneal power (TCP) of combined placido-dual Scheimpflug imaging system.

SETTING

The study was conducted at LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India.

DESIGN

Retrospective evaluation of electronic medical records of patients who were evaluated for cataract surgery.

METHODS

Twenty-eight eyes of 28 patients were included in the study. All patients evaluated for cataract surgery underwent corneal power measurements using three devices: ssOCT, OLCR, and combined placido-dual Scheimpflug imaging were included in the study. Vector analysis was performed to evaluate corneal astigmatism and Bland-Altman analysis was conducted to evaluate the limits of agreement of similar parameters among devices.

RESULTS

The mean TK was statistically significantly different from the keratometry obtained from optical biometers and values measured by the Scheimpflug imaging system. The magnitude of mean difference was greater between TK and TCP (0.75 ± 0.25) compared to other variables. The mean difference in astigmatism between TK, ss-OCT-K (0.09 ± 0.12, p = 0.48), OCLR-K (0.10 ± 0.48, p = 0.91), and TCP (0.09 ± 0.47, p = 0.31) was not statistically significant but was statistically significant between TK and SimK values (0.23D ± 0.49D). The axis of orientation (<20°) of astigmatism was comparable (100%, 28 eyes) between two keratometry variables measured by ss-OCT.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be a greater correlation of automated keratometry, and TK values obtained from ss-OCT compared to other variables studied. The measurements from TK, Simk, and TCP cannot be used interchangeably.

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.].