Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism

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.

Analysis of the ESCRS calculator's prediction accuracy

PURPOSE

To evaluate prediction accuracy of formulas included in the ESCRS online intraocular lens (IOL) calculator using standard keratometry (K) or total keratometry (TK).

SETTING

Hospital-based academic practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective case-series.

METHODS

523 patients with cataract (523 eyes) were included in this study. The outcome measures were trimmed means of the spherical equivalent prediction error (SEQ-PE, trueness), precision and absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) of all 7 formulas available on the ESCRS online IOL calculator, as well as mean (Mean-All) and median (Median-All) of the predicted SEQ refraction of all formulas. Subgroup analyses evaluated the effect of axial length on formula accuracy.

RESULTS

Trimmed-mean SEQ-PE range of all formulas varied from -0.075 to +0.071 diopters (D) for K-based and from -0.003 to +0.147 D for TK-based calculations, with TK-based being more hyperopic in all formulas ( P < .001). Precision ranged from 0.210 to 0.244 D for both K-based and TK-based calculations. Absolute SEQ-PE ranged from 0.211 to 0.239 D for K-based and from 0.218 to 0.255 D for TK-based calculations. All formulas, including Mean-All and Median-All, showed high accuracy, with 84% to 90% of eyes having SEQ-PEs within 0.50 D.Myopic trimmed-mean SEQ-PEs significantly different from zero were observed in long eyes for Pearl DGS (-0.110 D, P = .005), Hill RBF (-0.120 D, P < .001), and Hoffer QST (-0.143 D, P = .001) and in short eyes for EVO 2.0 (-0.252 D, P = .001), Kane (-0.264 D, P = .001), Hoffer QST (-0.302 D, P < .001), Mean-All (-0.122 D, P = .038), and Median-All (-0.125 D, P = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

Prediction accuracy of all ESCRS IOL calculator formulas was high and globally comparable. TK-based calculations did not increase prediction accuracy and tended toward hyperopia. Observations indicating formula superiority in long and short eyes merit further evaluation.

Repeatability and agreement of total corneal astigmatism measured in keratoconic eyes using four current devices

BACKGROUND

To evaluate repeatability and agreement in measurements of total corneal astigmatism (TCA) in keratoconic eyes, using four optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based devices: Anterion, Casia SS-1000, IOLMaster 700, and MS-39.

METHODS

Three consecutive measurements were taken with each device in 136 eyes. TCA values were converted into components J0 and J45. The Anterion and the IOLMaster 700 also provided axial length (AL) measurements. The repeatability was calculated using pooled within-subject standard deviation (Sw). The agreement among the four devices was assessed by pairwise comparisons and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

For all devices, the repeatability of TCA measurements showed Sw ≤0.23 D for TCA magnitude, ≤0.14 D for J0, and ≤0.12 D for J45. There were statistically significant differences in TCA magnitude for each pair, except for IOLMaster 700 with MS-39, and Anterion with MS-39. The repeatability (Sw) of axis measurements had a statistically significant negative correlation with the TCA magnitude (p < 0.001 for all devices). Both Anterion and IOLMaster 700 had high repeatability in AL measurements (Sw: 0.007 mm for Anterion and 0.009 mm for IOLMaster 700). The difference in AL between the two was 0.015 ± 0.033 mm (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All four devices showed good repeatability in TCA measurements in keratoconic eyes, the agreement for TCA measurements between the tested devices was generally low. Anterion and IOLMaster 700 showed good repeatability and agreement in AL measurements.

Associations of ocular anterior segment structures with sex and age: the Yamagata study (Funagata)

PURPOSE

To investigate the associations of tomographic parameters in anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) with sex and age in a cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN

A cohort design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

AS-OCT data from 391 Japanese participants aged ≥ 35 years were obtained using swept-source OCT. In the cornea, the keratometric power at the flat (Kf) and steep (Ks) meridians, maximum keratometric power (Kmax), keratometric cylinder, spherical power, regular astigmatism, asymmetry, higher-order irregularity (HOI) from the anterior and posterior surfaces, and the central and thinnest corneal thicknesses were evaluated. Also, anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness, crystalline lens rise (CLR), and nasal and temporal angle opening distances at 500 μm from the scleral spur (AOD500) were assessed. Sex differences and age-related changes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Women exhibited higher anterior Kf, Ks, and Kmax and lower posterior Kf, Ks, and Kmax than men. The ACD and nasal/temporal AOD500 were shorter in women than in men. The CLR was higher in women, whereas the lens thickness did not differ between the sexes, indicating a more anteriorly positioned lens in women. Age-related changes included increased anterior/posterior HOI, increased lens thickness and CLR resulting in decreased ACD and AOD500.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals sex-related differences in corneal shape, anterior chamber conformation, and lens position, as well as age-related changes in tomographic parameters. ACD, CLR, nasal and temporal AOD500 showed significant sex differences in the 50-70 s, whereas lens thickness showed no difference.

Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Formulas With Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism of Different Orientations

PURPOSE

To assess whether the use of measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) values improves the prediction accuracy of toric intraocular lens power formulas, compared to predicted PCA values, when the orientation of the steep axis of PCA is non-vertical.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

METHODS

Four hundred eighteen eyes of 344 patients were included in the study. Prediction errors (PE) for postoperative refractive astigmatism at 4 weeks postoperatively were determined using vector analysis and compared for the following toric intraocular lens power formulas: Barrett Toric with predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PPCA); Barrett Toric with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA); EVO Toric PPCA; EVO Toric MPCA; Holladay I with Abulafia-Koch regression. Subgroup analysis compared PEs for eyes with a vertically orientated steep axis of PCA (60-120°) to eyes with a non-vertically orientated steep axis of PCA.

SETTING

Cathedral Eye Clinic, Belfast, United Kingdom and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.

RESULTS

Standard keratometry was with-the-rule in 48% of eyes, while the steep PCA axis was vertically orientated in 91% of eyes. For all eyes, EVO-PPCA had a smaller mean absolute error than Barrett-MPCA, Barrett-PPCA, and Abulafia-Koch (P < .01 for all). EVO-PPCA had the highest percentage of eyes within 0.50D of predicted postoperative astigmatism for eyes with vertical PCA (61%), while EVO-MPCA had the highest percentage for eyes with non-vertical PCA (54%). EVO-MPCA had the smallest centroid error for all eyes, and the subgroups (P < .01 for all). Eyes with non-vertical PCA had a lower percentage within 0.50D than eyes with vertical PCA when using PPCA (43% vs 61%, P = .034), but there was no significant difference between these groups when MPCA is used for eyes with non-vertical PCA (54% vs 61%, P = .40).

CONCLUSIONS

When the steep axis of posterior corneal astigmatism is not vertically orientated, the use of measured posterior keratometry values improves prediction accuracy.

Optimizing IOL Calculators with Deep Learning Prediction of Total Corneal Astigmatism

Background/Objectives: This study aims to identify the most accurate regression model for predicting total corneal astigmatism (TCA) from anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) and to fine-tune the best model's architecture to further optimize predictive accuracy. Methods: A retrospective review of 19,468 eyes screened for refractive surgery was conducted using electronic medical records. Corneal topography data were acquired using the Pentacam HR. Various types (7) and subtypes (21) of regression learners were tested, with a deep neural network (DNN) emerging as the most suitable. The DNN was further refined, experimenting with 23 different architectures. Model performance was evaluated using root mean squared error (RMSE), R2, average residual error, and circular error. The final model only used age, ACA magnitude, and ACA axis to predict TCA magnitude and axis. Results were compared to predictions from one of the leading TCA prediction formulas. Results: Our model achieved higher performance for TCA magnitude prediction (R2 = 0.9740, RMSE = 0.0963 D, and average residual error = 0.0733 D) compared to the leading formula (R2 = 0.8590, RMSE = 0.2257 D, and average residual error = 0.1928 D). Axis prediction error also improved by an average of 8.1° (average axis prediction error = 4.74° versus 12.8°). The deep learning approach consistently demonstrated smaller errors and tighter clustering around actual values compared to the traditional formula. Conclusion: Deep learning techniques significantly outperformed traditional methods for TCA prediction accuracy using the Pentacam HR. This approach may lead to more precise TCA calculations and better IOL selection, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes.

Intraocular Lens Power and Corneal Topographic Change After Pterygium Surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of pterygium excision on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and corneal astigmatism.

DESIGNS

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We enrolled 30 eyes with primary pterygium that underwent pterygium excision with a conjunctival autograft. IOL power calculation and keratometry using the IOL Master 700, along with topographic parameters using the Pentacam Scheimpflug topography system, were performed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. We analyzed correlations between pterygium length/area and IOL power, as well as corneal topographic changes.

RESULTS

The mean pterygium length was 2.08 ± 0.58 mm, and the mean area was 6.05 ± 2.41 mm2. One year after pterygium surgery, the calculated IOL power values using all formulas were lower than the preoperative values. Pterygia with a horizontal length of 1.73 mm and an area of 4.45 mm2 and those with a horizontal length of 2.25 mm and an area of 6.95 mm2 created 0.5 diopters (D) and 1.0 D errors in calculated IOL power, respectively (P < .001). The calculated IOL power values changed significantly from preoperative to 6 months postoperatively but did not change significantly from 6 to 12 months postoperatively. Pterygia with a horizontal length >1.83 mm (P < .001) and an area >5.1 mm2 (P < .001) created a 2.0 D error in anterior corneal astigmatism.

CONCLUSIONS

Pterygium causes errors in IOL power calculation, with greater pterygium length/area exerting a larger effect. Cataract surgery with IOL implantation is recommended ≥6 months after pterygium surgery. In combined cases, calculated IOL power should be decreased by 0.5 to 1.5 D based on the pterygium length/area.

Repeatability and Agreement of 4 Biometers Measuring Corneal Astigmatism in Eyes With Irregular Corneal Astigmatism Component

PURPOSE

To investigate the repeatability and agreement of corneal astigmatism measurements in eyes with irregular corneal astigmatism component (ICAC) using four devices: IOLMaster 700 biometer, Lenstar 900 biometer, iTrace, and Pentacam.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional reliability analysis.

METHODS

Sixty-four eyes (52 patients) with ICAC were examined three times using the four devices. The eye with ICAC in this study is defined as the cornea has a certain degree of irregular astigmatism (asymmetric and/or skewed bowtie pattern of corneal topography according to corneal topography classification), accompanied with total corneal higher-order aberrations in the 4 mm zone of 0.3 µm or greater. Corneal astigmatism was evaluated using three categories: anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA), posterior corneal astigmatism, and total corneal astigmatism (TCA). The repeatability was determined using the ∆Ast (arithmetic mean of vector differences among three repeated corneal astigmatism measurements). Bland-Altman plots and astigmatism vector analyses were employed to assess agreement.

RESULTS

The IOLMaster 700 (∆Ast = 0.27 ± 0.20 D) showcased higher repeatability in ACA measurements compared to iTrace (∆Ast = 0.37 ± 0.38 D, P = .040) and Pentacam (∆Ast = 0.50 ± 0.22 D, P < .001), and paralleled the performance of Lenstar 900 (∆Ast = 0.31 ± 0.26 D, P = .338). The Pentacam (∆Ast = 0.09 ± 0.07 D, P < .001) demonstrated superior repeatability in posterior corneal astigmatism, whereas the IOLMaster 700 (∆Ast = 0.33 ± 0.23 D, P < .001) excelled in TCA. The IOLMaster 700 exhibited good agreement with either Lenstar 900 or iTrace, characterized by narrow 95% limits of agreement and clinically acceptable vector differences. Conversely, vector differences between Pentacam and the other three devices in ACA and TCA measurements were clinically significant, exceeding 0.50 D (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of repeatability of corneal astigmatism measurements in eyes with ICAC, the IOLMaster 700 and Lenstar 900 outperformed iTrace and Pentacam. While the IOLMaster 700 can be used interchangeably with either Lenstar 900 or iTrace, the Pentacam is not interchangeable with the other three devices.

Criteria for premium intraocular lens patient selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss available premium intraocular lenses (IOLs), patient selection, and important considerations for each premium IOL.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review important topics and considerations for premium IOL selection: specifically, toric, extended depth of focus (EDOF), multifocal/trifocal, light adjustable lenses (LALs), and small aperture IOLs. Toric lenses are an excellent option for patients with astigmatism. However, to achieve optimal patient satisfaction, it is critical to account for the ATR astigmatism contribution from the posterior cornea and high angle alphas. Additionally, examining the ocular surface prior to placement of EDOF/multifocal IOLs is important, yet the significance of HOAs on outcomes after implantation still must be elucidated more. Finally, recent studies reveal that the small aperture lens is a good alternative for those with corneal irregularities, and second generation LALs are a great option to achieve target refractions in those with less predictable refractive outcomes, such as in Fuchs' dystrophy or in eyes with previous refractive surgery.

The Influence of Corneal Thickness on Surgically Induced Corneal Astigmatism Derived from Total Keratometry Measured by Anterior Segment Swept-Source OCT

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study was to explore the possible correlations between the anterior segment parameters derived from anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography (AS-SS-OCT) with the surgically induced corneal astigmatism (CSIA) calculated from total keratometry (TK) measured by AS-SS-OCT.

METHODS

Seventy-one eyes of 67 patients with age-related cataract who underwent phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens implantation with 2.2-mm incision were included. The CSIA values were calculated from anterior keratometry (CSIAKant) and TK (CSIATK) measured by AS-SS-OCT, respectively. Hotelling's T2 test was used to evaluate the difference. The correlation of CSIA with various parameters derived from AS-SS-OCT was tested with the Spearman correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The centroid of CSIAKant and of CSIATK were 0.31 ± 0.55 D @ 54° and 0.41 ± 0.59 D @ 51°, with no significant difference (F = 1.283, p = 0.281, Hotelling's T2). The mean absolute CSIAKant and CSIATK were 0.58 ± 0.24 D and 0.65 ± 0.28 D. Spearman test showed that the magnitude of CSIAKant was negatively correlated with preoperative peripheral corneal thickness (PCT, p = 0.045) and the magnitude of anterior keratometry (p = 0.044). The magnitude of CSIATK was negatively correlated with preoperative central corneal thickness (CCT, p = 0.003) and preoperative PCT (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The increased thickness of the peripheral cornea is correlated with the decrease in the magnitude of the CSIA. The correlation we identified between the corneal thickness and the CSIA indicated that certain preoperative parameters should be considered for the prediction of CSIA for a more precise refractive outcome.

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Accuracy Between 2 Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry Devices

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction accuracy of the Eyestar 900 (EyeS900) and the IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700) based on estimated and measured posterior corneal power.

DESIGN

Retrospective, interinstrument reliability study.

METHODS

Setting: Institutional.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 cataract surgery patients.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients underwent measurements by both devices preoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error (SEQ-PE), spread of the SEQ-PE (precision) and the absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) of each device using Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula with either estimated posterior keratometry (E-PK) or measured posterior keratometry (M-PK).

RESULTS

Trimmed mean SEQ-PEs of EyeS900 E-PK, EyeS900 M-PK, IOLM700 E-PK, and IOLM700 M-PK were 0.03, 0.08, 0.02, and 0.09 D, respectively with no significant differences between EyeS900 E-PK and IOLM700 E-PK (P = 0.31) as well as between EyeS900 M-PK and IOLM700 M-PK (P = 0.31). Statistically significant SEQ-PE differences were found when E-PK and M-PK were compared, regardless of the device used, showing hyperopic SEQ-PE in M-PK calculations. Excellent correlation and agreement in SEQ-PE were found between the devices for both E-PK (P < 0.001, r = 0.848, mean bias: +0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.32 to +0.34 D) and M-PK (P < 0.001, r = 0.776, mean bias: -0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.42 to +0.39 D). No significant differences were found comparing absolute SEQ-PE and precision of the devices.

CONCLUSION

The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show comparable IOL power prediction accuracy by the BUII formula using either estimated or measured posterior keratometry. An adjusted lens factor may be required for BUII when utilizing measured posterior keratometry in both devices.

Using Total Corneal Astigmatism With Femtosecond Laser Cataract Surgery and Arcuate Keratotomy(ies) to Treat Low Amounts of Astigmatism

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes using total corneal astigmatism (TCA) to calculate arcuate keratotomy(ies) (AK) parameters performed with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery to reduce low corneal astigmatism.

METHODS

Patients who had femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and AK with 0.50 diopter (D) to 1.30 D of TCA were included. Exclusion criteria were intraoperative complications, preexisting corneal surgery, and comorbidities that might adversely affect outcomes. Corneal tomography (Galilei G4, Zeimer Ophthalmic Systems AG) was performed preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively. TCA was input into the Donnenfeld limbal relaxing incisions nomogram to calculate the AK parameters. Preoperative and postoperative tomographic and subjective refractive measurements were compared. The Alpins method for vector analysis evaluated results.

RESULTS

Eighty-two eyes of 82 patients were included. Mean preoperative TCA was significantly reduced from 0.80 ± 0.19 D to 0.51 D ± 0.26 D ( P < 0.001). Preoperative posterior corneal astigmatism, -0.28 ± 0.13 D, was unchanged, postoperative posterior corneal astigmatism, -0.28 ± 0.14 D ( P = 0.653). Target-induced astigmatism arithmetic mean (0.82 ± 0.21 D) was greater than that of the surgically induced astigmatism (0.70 ± 0.40 D), resulting in an arithmetic mean difference vector of 0.51 ± 0.27 D with a summated mean at 0.16 D at 20 degrees. The correction index was 0.87, indicating undercorrection. Angle of error arithmetic mean, -1.27 ± 23.27 degrees, indicated good alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Inputting TCA for calculation of femtosecond laser AK parameters can reduce low amounts of preoperative corneal astigmatism, thereby improving uncorrected vision.

Evaluating keratometry and corneal astigmatism data from biometers and anterior segment tomographers and mapping to reconstructed corneal astigmatism

BACKGROUND

To compare results from different corneal astigmatism measurement instruments; to reconstruct corneal astigmatism from the postimplantation spectacle refraction and toric intraocular lens (IOL) power; and to derive models for mapping measured corneal astigmatism to reconstructed corneal astigmatism.

METHODS

Retrospective single centre study involving 150 eyes treated with a toric IOL (Alcon SN6AT, DFT or TFNT). Measurements included IOLMaster 700 keratometry (IOLMK) and total keratometry (IOLMTK), Pentacam keratometry (PK) and total corneal refractive power in 3 and 4 mm zones (PTCRP3 and PTCRP4), and Aladdin keratometry (AK). Regression-based models mapping the measured C0 and C45 components (Alpin's method) to reconstructed corneal astigmatism were derived.

RESULTS

Mean C0 components were 0.50/0.59/0.51 dioptres (D) for IOLMK/PK/AK; 0.2/0.26/0.31 D for IOLMTK/PTCRP3/PTCRP4; and 0.26 D for reconstructed corneal astigmatism. All corresponding C45 components ranged around 0. The prediction models had main diagonal elements lower than 1 with some crosstalk between C0 and C45 (nonzero off-diagonal elements). Root-mean-squared residuals were 0.44/0.45/0.48/0.51/0.50/0.47 D for IOLMK/IOLMTK/PK/PTCRP3/PTCRP4/AK.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the different modalities are not consistent. On average IOLMTK/PTCRP3/PTCRP4 match reconstructed corneal astigmatism, whereas IOLMK/PK/AK show systematic C0 offsets of around 0.25 D. IOLMTK/PTCRP3/PTCRP4. Prediction models can reduce but not fully eliminate residual astigmatism after toric IOL implantation.

Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes

PURPOSE

To compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Setting: Two academic centers Study Population: 576 eyes (400 patients) with previous M-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. A SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry values (TK).

OBSERVATION PROCEDURES

Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 11 no-history formulas: two legacy M-LVC formulas, four new M-LVC formulas using K values only, and five new M-LVC formulas using K with PK or TK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Heteroscedastic testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance, and formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS

New M-LVC formulas performed better than legacy M-LVC formulas. New M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values performed better than versions without PK/TK values. Among new M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values, EVO 2.0-PK was superior to Hoffer QST-PK (P < 0.005). Among new M-LVC formulas using K only, Pearl DGS-K and EVO 2.0-K were both superior to Hoffer QST-K and Barrett True K NH-K formulas (all P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should favor using new no-history post M-LVC formulas over legacy post M-LVC formulas whenever possible. The top-performing M-LVC formulas (EVO 2.0-PK, Pearl DGS-PK, and Barrett True K-TK) utilized posterior corneal power values. Among formulas utilizing K alone, the EVO 2.0-K and Pearl DGS-K performed best.

Assessment of the refractive outcomes of patients with regular corneal astigmatism implanted with high-power toric intraocular lenses

BACKGROUND

To describe the refractive outcomes of eyes with high regular corneal astigmatism undergoing age-related cataract surgery.

METHODS

Astigmatic patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of high-power XY1AT HOYA® toric lenses (IOLs) (≥ T5) between March 2020 and June 2022 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of Total Corneal Astigmatism (TCA) used for the toric IOL calculation: group 1 = TCATK- 700 (TCA measured by the Iol Master 700®) and group 2 = TCAAK- 700 (TCA estimated from the anterior keratometry of the Iol Master 700® and using the Abulafia-Koch regression). The best-uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective spherical equivalent (SSEq) and subjective residual cylinder (SRC) were assessed at 1 month. The predictability (centroid [CEPA] and mean absolute error in predicted astigmatism [MAEPA]) of the 2 TCA assessment methods was analyzed.

RESULTS

96 eyes of 74 patients were included. In the whole cohort, the UDVA was 0.14 ± 0.19 logMAR, the CDVA was 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR. Postoperative SSEq was - 0.24 ± 0.53D. Postoperative SRC was - 0.48 ± 0.56D. The UDVA, SSEq and SRC did not significantly differ between groups. The MAEPA was significantly better with TCAAK-700 compared to TCATK-700: 0.58 ± 0.52D versus 0.65 ± 0.55D (p = 0.01). No significant difference was observed for the CEPA (p(x) = 0.09, p(y) = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

XY1AT HOYA® toric IOLs are a very good alternative even in case of high toricity. Residual astigmatism predictability is high, it would be better with TCAAK- 700. This data should be confirmed with a larger sample of patients.

The Homburg-Adelaide toric IOL nomogram: How to predict corneal power vectors from preoperative IOLMaster 700 keratometry and total corneal power in toric IOL implantation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the reconstructed corneal power (RCP) by working backwards from the post-implantation spectacle refraction and toric intraocular lens power and to develop the models for mapping preoperative keratometry and total corneal power to RCP.

METHODS

Retrospective single-centre study involving 442 eyes treated with a monofocal and trifocal toric IOL (Zeiss TORBI and LISA). Keratometry and total corneal power were measured preoperatively and postoperatively using IOLMaster 700. Feedforward neural network and multilinear regression models were derived to map keratometry and total corneal power vector components (equivalent power EQ and astigmatism components C0 and C45) to the respective RCP components.

RESULTS

Mean preoperative/postoperative C0 for keratometry and total corneal power was -0.14/-0.08 dioptres and -0.30/-0.24 dioptres. All mean C45 components ranged between -0.11 and -0.20 dioptres. With crossvalidation, the neural network and regression models showed comparable results on the test data with a mean squared prediction error of 0.20/0.18 and 0.22/0.22 dioptres2 and on the training data the neural network models outperformed the regression models with 0.11/0.12 and 0.22/0.22 dioptres2 for predicting RCP from preoperative keratometry/total corneal power.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our dataset, both the feedforward neural network and multilinear regression models showed good precision in predicting the power vector components of RCP from preoperative keratometry or total corneal power. With a similar performance in crossvalidation and a simple implementation in consumer software, we recommend implementation of regression models in clinical practice.

Comparison between IOL MASTER 500 and MYAH with vector analysis in low and mild anterior corneal astigmatism

PURPOSE

Evaluate the agreement between IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Germany) and MYAH (Topcon EU, Visia Imaging, Japan) in measuring axial length, keratometry, and anterior corneal astigmatism.

SETTING

Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, Ophthalmology Clinic, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 40 eyes (right eye 25, left eye 15) of 40 patients were included. Axial length (AL), keratometry (K1, K2), and anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) were measured. AL, mean K (Kavg) and magnitude of ACA were compared using Bland - Altman plot analysis, parametric and nonparametric statistical analysis. The difference vector and angle of error of the ACA measured by the two devices were evaluated by vector analysis using polar diagrams.

RESULTS

Mean and standard deviation with IOL Master and with MYAH device was for AL 24.25 ± 1.22 mm and 24.25 ± 1.22 mm (p = .99), for Kavg 42.75 ± 1.53 D and 42.85 ± 1.52 D (p = .78), for Magnitude of ACA 1.00 ± 0.58 D and 0.89 ± 0.56 D (p = .38) respectively. High correlations were found for AL (R² = 0.999), Kavg (R² = 0.996), and ACA Magnitude (R² = 0.889). Bland-Altman analysis of the two devices found high agreement and absence of proportional bias (MYAH-IOL MASTER) were found between the two assessments for AL (bias = -0.0005 mm, p = .93), Kavg (bias = 0.0955 D, p = .76) and ACA (bias = 0.11 D, p = .41). Limit of agreement (upper/lower LoA, 95%CI) were respectively +0.057/-0.058 mm for AL, + 0.29/-0.09 D for Kavg and +0.49/-0.27 D for ACA. No statistical difference was found between the x-component and y-component of the ACA vector (p > .01), the difference vector (IOL MASTER-MYAH) was +0.14 D axis 159 with an absolute mean angle of error of 7.2 ± 7.5 degree.

CONCLUSIONS

The instruments appear to be interchangeable for measurements of AL, keratometry, and magnitude of ACA with high agreement between the two devices. Also, in the presence of low astigmatism, the two instruments give the same results in terms of ACA.

Comparative Accuracy of Barrett Integrated Keratometry Toric Calculator With Predicted Versus Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the prediction accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator using standard or integrated keratometry (IK) mode in combination with predicted or measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) in a group of patients with cataract implanted with non-toric IOLs.

METHODS

In this retrospective clinical cohort study, the medical records of patients with age-related cataract who underwent phacoemulsification with the implantation of an aspheric monofocal IOL were reviewed. Four methods, including standard keratometry with predicted PCA (PPCA), IK combined with predicted PCA (IK-PPCA), and IK combined with measured PCA derived from IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) or CASIA2 (Tomey) (IK-MMPCA or IK-CMPCA), were applied to the Barrett toric calculator to calculate the predicted residual astigmatism. The mean absolute prediction error (MAPE), centroid of the prediction error, and proportion of eyes within the prediction error of ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters (D) were all ciphered out from the four methods, respectively.

RESULTS

Data from 129 eyes of 129 patients were included in this study. The MAPE of the IK-PPCA method (0.57 ± 0.36 D) was significantly smaller than that of the PPCA (0.62 ± 0.38 D) and IK-CMPCA (0.63 ± 0.46 D) methods (P = .048 and .014, respectively). There were no significant differences in the centroid vectors of prediction errors and predictability rates among the four methods (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the current version of the Barrett toric calculator, the predictive accuracy of the IK mode incorporating PPCA was slightly superior to using the standard keratometry mode or incorporating MPCA. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(7):e453-e459.].

Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Calculations Using Estimated Versus Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare the prediction accuracy of toric intraocular lens calculations using estimated vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA).

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

A total of 110 eyes of 110 patients with uncomplicated toric intraocular lens implantation were included in this study. Predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated with the Barrett Toric Calculator using the estimated PCA (E-PCA), the measured IOLMaster 700 PCA (I-PCA), and the measured Pentacam PCA (P-PCA). Refractive astigmatism prediction errors (RA-PEs), including their trimmed (tr-) centroid (mean vector), spread (precision), tr-mean absolute RA-PE (accuracy), and percentage within a certain threshold, were determined using vector analysis and compared between groups.

SETTING

University Eye Clinic, Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands.

RESULTS

The tr-centroid RA-PEs of the E-PCA (0.02 diopter [D] at 82.2°), the I-PCA (0.08 D at 35.5°), and the P-PCA (0.09 D at 69.1°) were significantly different from each other (P < .01), but not significantly different from zero (P = .75, P = .05, and P = .05, respectively). The E-PCA had the best precision (tr-mean 0.40 D), which was not significantly lower than the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .53) and P-PCA (0.43 D, P = .06). The E-PCA also had the best accuracy (0.40 D), which was not significantly different from the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .26) and significantly better than the P-PCA (0.44 D, P < .01). The precision and accuracy of the I-PCA did not significantly differ from those of the P-PCA. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of eyes within a certain absolute RA-PE threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett Toric Calculator using the E-PCA, I-PCA, or P-PCA showed a comparable prediction of postoperative refractive astigmatism in standard clinical practice.

Effect of Posterior Keratometry on the Accuracy of 10 Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas: Standard Keratometry versus Total Keratometry

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of posterior keratometry (PK) on the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas using standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK).

METHODS

This is a retrospective consecutive case-series study. The IOL power was calculated using K and TK measured by IOLMaster 700 in 6 new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, RBF Calculator 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and Ladas Super Formula) and 4 traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T). The arithmetic prediction error (PE) and mean absolute PE (MAE) were evaluated. The locally-weighted scatterplot smoothing was performed to assess the relationship between PE and PK.

RESULTS

A total of 576 patients (576 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery were included. Compared with using K, all formulas using TK showed a hyperopic shift in the whole group. Specifically, for eyes with PK exceeding -5.90 D, all formulas using TK exhibited a hyperopic shift (all P < 0.001), while eyes with PK less than -5.90 D showed a myopic shift (all P < 0.001). The MAE of new-generation formulas calculated with TK and K showed no statistical differences, while the MAE of traditional formulas with TK was larger (TK: 0.34 ~ 0.43 D; K: 0.33 ~ 0.42 D, all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction bias of formulas with TK increased as PK deviated from -5.90 D. TK did not improve the prediction accuracy of new-generation formulas, and even performed worse in traditional formulas.

Accuracy of toric intraocular lens power calculation depending on different keratometry values using a novel network based software platform

Purpose

To compare different corneal keratometry readings (swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry and Scheimpflug imaging) with a novel software platform for calculation of toric intraocular lenses.

Setting

Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

Design

Retrospective, non-randomized, clinical trial.

Methods

Twenty-three eyes undergoing toric intraocular lens implantation were included. Inclusion criteria were preoperative regular corneal astigmatism of at least 1.00 D, no previous refractive surgery, no ocular surface diseases and no maculopathies. Lens exchange was performed with CALLISTO eye (Zeiss). For each patient, the expected postoperative residual refraction was calculated depending on three different corneal parameters of two different devices: standard K-front (K) and total keratometry (TK) obtained by a swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry system (IOL Master 700, Zeiss) as well as total corneal refractive power (TCRP) obtained by a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam AXL, Oculus). Barrett's formula for toric intraocular lenses was used for all calculations within a novel software platform (EQ workplace, Zeiss FORUM®). Results were statistically compared with postoperative refraction calculated according to the Harris dioptric power matrix.

Results

The standard K values (mean PE 0.02 D ± 0.45 D) and TK values (mean PE 0.09 D ± 0.43 D) of the IOL Master 700 reached similar results (p = 0.96). 78% of eyes in both K and TK groups achieved SE within ±0.5 D of attempted correction and all eyes (100%) were within ±1.0 D of attempted correction in both groups. By contrast, the prediction error in the IOL calculation using the TCRP of the Scheimpflug device was significantly greater (mean PE -0.56 D ± 0.49 D; p = 0.00 vs. standard K and p = 0.00 vs. TK) with adjusted refractive indices. Thirty-nine and Ninety-one percentage of eyes in the TCRP group achieved SE within ±0.5 D (p = 0.008 K vs. TCRP and p = 0.005 TK vs. TCRP) and ± 1.0 D (p = 0.14 vs. TCRP) of attempted correction, respectively.

Conclusion

All three corneal parameters (standard K, TK, TCRP) performed well in calculating toric IOLs. The most accurate refractive outcomes in toric IOL implantation were achieved by IOL calculations based on swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry. The SS-OCT-based K-front and TK values achieve comparable results in the calculation of toric IOLs.

Evaluation of statistical correction strategies for corneal back surface astigmatism with toric lenses: a vector analysis

PURPOSE

To compare actual and formula-predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism using measured posterior corneal power measurements and 4 different empiric posterior corneal astigmatism correction models.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective consecutive case series.

METHODS

Using a dataset of 211 eyes before and after tIOL implantation (Hoya Vivinex), IOLMaster 700 (IOLM) or Casia2 (CASIA) keratometric and front/back surface corneal power measurements were converted to power vector components C0 (0/90 degrees) and C45 (45/135 degrees). Differences between postoperative and Castrop formula predicted refraction at the corneal plane using the labeled parameters of the tIOL and the keratometric or front/back surface corneal powers were recorded as the effect of corneal back surface astigmatism (BSA).

RESULTS

Generally, the centroid of the difference shifted toward negative C0 values indicating that BSA adds some against the rule corneal astigmatism (ATR). From IOLM/CASIA keratometry, the average difference in C0 was 0.39/0.32 diopter (D). After correction with the Abulafia-Koch, Goggin, La Hood, and Castrop nomograms, it was -0.18/-0.24 D, 0.27/0.18 D, 0.13/0.08 D, and 0.17/0.10 D. Using corneal front/back surface data from IOLM/CASIA, the difference was 0.18/0.12 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The Abulafia-Koch method overcorrected the ATR, while the Goggin, La Hood, and Castrop models slightly undercorrected ATR, and using measurements from the CASIA tomographer seemed to produce slightly less prediction error than IOLM.

Predictive accuracy of Barrett TK toric calculator compared to measured posterior corneal astigmatism using Pentacam in toric IOL power calculation

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive accuracy of Barrett total keratometry (Barrett TK) toric calculator with the measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) by using Pentacam in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was done on 118 eyes requiring toric IOL power implantation. The absolute prediction error of the Barrett TK toric calculator and the measured PCA in the online toric calculator were assessed and compared to the standard Alcon toric calculator (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated).

RESULTS

The mean absolute prediction error of the online toric calculator (0.32 D) (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated), Barrett TK Toric (0.34 D), and measured PCA of Pentacam in Barrett toric calculator (0.33 D) were found to be similar with no statistically significant difference. Subanalysis in eyes with with-the-rule astigmatism, against-the-rule astigmatism, and oblique astigmatism showed similar results. Alpins analysis showed that all three methods overcorrected corneal astigmatism.

CONCLUSION

The Barrett TK toric calculator and the measured PCA of Pentacam in the Barrett toric calculator have similar predictive accuracy to the online toric calculator (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated).

Toric Monofocal Intraocular Lenses for the Correction of Astigmatism during Cataract Surgery: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To review the published literature evaluating the visual and refractive outcomes and rotational stability of eyes implanted with toric monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) for the correction of keratometric astigmatism during cataract surgery and to compare those outcomes with outcomes of eyes implanted with nontoric monofocal IOLs and other astigmatism management methods performed during cataract surgery. This assessment was restricted to the toric IOLs available in the United States.

METHODS

A literature search of English-language publications in the PubMed database was last conducted in July 2022. The search identified 906 potentially relevant citations, and after review of the abstracts, 63 were selected for full-text review. Twenty-one studies ultimately were determined to be relevant to the assessment criteria and were selected for inclusion. The panel methodologist assigned each a level of evidence rating; 12 studies were rated level I and 9 studies were rated level II.

RESULTS

Eyes implanted with toric IOLs showed excellent postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), reduction of postoperative refractive astigmatism, and good rotational stability. Uncorrected distance visual acuity was better and postoperative cylinder was lower with toric IOLs, regardless of manufacturer, when compared with nontoric monofocal IOLs. Correcting pre-existing astigmatism with toric IOLs was more effective and predictable than using corneal relaxing incisions (CRIs), especially in the presence of higher magnitudes of astigmatism.

CONCLUSIONS

Toric monofocal IOLs are effective in neutralizing pre-existing corneal astigmatism at the time of cataract surgery and result in better UCDVA and significant reductions in postoperative refractive astigmatism compared with nontoric monofocal IOLs. Toric IOLs result in better astigmatic correction than CRIs, particularly at high magnitudes of astigmatism.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Comparison of toric intraocular lens alignment between femtosecond laser-assisted capsular marking and digital marking

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) alignment between femtosecond laser-assisted capsular marking and digital marking.

SETTING

Ruhr University Eye Clinic, Bochum, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical trial.

METHODS

In this study, 28 eyes of 23 patients, who underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with implantation of a toric IOL, were included. Intraoperatively, both femtosecond laser-assisted capsular marking and digital marking were applied simultaneously and compared in every case. The toric IOL was aligned to the capsular markings. Postoperatively, the axis of the capsular markings and toric IOL alignment was examined. Visual acuity and refractive outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Both alignment methods were performed without intraoperative complications in all cases. 25 eyes were included in the final analysis. Misalignment was significantly lower with femtosecond laser-assisted capsular marking than with digital marking (1.71 ± 1.25 degrees vs 2.64 ± 1.70 degrees, P = .016). Deviation from the target axis of the toric IOL was 1.62 ± 1.24 degrees 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively. Postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.14 ± 0.13 logMAR, and residual astigmatism was 0.3 ± 0.23 diopter (D) with an astigmatism ≤0.5 D in 93% of eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Both methods showed excellent results for the alignment of toric IOLs. However, femtosecond laser-assisted capsular marking was significantly more precise than digital marking and showed good refractive results. In addition, capsular marking offers the possibility to avoid parallax error and evaluating postoperative IOL rotation.

Calculation of the total corneal astigmatism using the virtual cross cylinder method on the secondary principal plane of the cornea

This study aimed to establish a virtual cross cylinder method to calculate the total corneal astigmatism by combining the anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism on the secondary principal plane of the cornea based on Gaussian optics. The meridian with the least refractive power, namely, the flattest meridian of the virtual cross cylinder of a ± 0.5 × C diopter, is set as the reference meridian, and the power (F) at an angle of φ between an arbitrary meridian and the reference meridian is defined as F(φ) =  - 0.5 × C × cos2φ. The magnitude and axis of the total corneal astigmatism were calculated by applying trigonometric functions and the atan2 function based on the combination of the virtual cross cylinders of the anterior corneal astigmatism and the posterior corneal astigmatism. To verify the performance of the virtual cross cylinder method, a verification experiment with two Jackson cross cylinders and a lensmeter was performed, and the measured and calculated values were compared. The limit of the natural domain of the arctangent function is circumvented by using the atan2 function. The magnitude and axis of the total corneal astigmatism are determined through generalized mathematical expressions. The verification experiment results showed good agreement between the measured and calculated values. Compared to the vector analysis method, the virtual cross cylinder method is mathematically sound and straightforward. A novel technique for calculating total corneal astigmatism, the virtual cross cylinder method, was developed and verified.

Refractive Predictability between Standard and Total Keratometry during the Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery with Monofocal Intraocular Lens with Enhanced Intermediate Function

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula using the standard keratometry (K) and total K (TK) during the femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with a monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function using currently used formulas.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 125 eyes from 125 patients who had undergone FLACS with implantation of monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function was conducted. The predicted refractive power was calculated using an optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) according to the K and TK in the Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay 2 formulas. Absolute prediction error (APE) obtained from the actual postoperative refractive outcomes and the refractive error predicted in each formula was compared one month after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean APE ranged between 0.29 and 0.39 diopters (D) regardless of the calculation formula and the method of measuring corneal curvature. Significant differences were observed in the APE from the four formulas and the two keratometric measurements (p = 0.014). In a total of 125 eyes from 125 patients, the mean APE was lowest with the Barrett Universal II formula. Across all formulas, both the mean APE and the median APE tended to be lower for K than for TK, although there was no significant difference. Approximately 70% to 80% of the patients were included within 0.5 D of the refractive error across all formulas. The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of APE outcomes was not statistically different between the K and TK data when using each formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Keratometric measurements considering the poster corneal curvature did not show any additional advantages when implanting the monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function during the FLACS.

Total keratometry for toric intraocular lens calculation: comparison from two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers

Purpose

To compare the astigmatism prediction accuracy of total keratometry (TK) from the IOLMaster 700 and total corneal power (TCP) from Anterion based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) technology in toric intraocular lens (toric IOL) calculation.

Design

A retrospective observational study.

Methods

Total corneal astigmatism (TCA) were obtained using IOLMaster 700 and Anterion. Z CALC 2.0 was used to calculate the expected postoperative refractive astigmatism in conjunction with TCA. Prediction errors (PE) in refractive outcomes was analyzed 1 month postoperatively using the vector analysis by the Holladay method, including the mean vector PE magnitude, percentage of cases with vector PE in certain intervals, and the centroid PE.

Results

A total of 56 eyes from 56 patients were enrolled in the study with an insertion of an AT TORBI 709 toric IOL. The difference in mean vector PE of postoperative refractive astigmatism between TK and TCP was not statistically significant (0.48D versus 0.46D, P = 0.281). TK and TCP yielded 27.3 and 40.0% of eyes with vector PE ≤ 0.25D, and 58.2 and 63.6% with vector PE ≤ 0.5D (both P > 0.05), respectively. TK and TCP resulted in similar ATR centroid PE of 0.10D@35° ± 0.60D and 0.15D@22° ± 0.57D, respectively, and there were no significant differences between x-PE component and y-PE component.

Conclusion

IOLMaster 700 and Anterion provided comparable astigmatic predictability in toric IOL implantation using total keratometry and Z CALC 2.0.

Revisiting Javal's rule: a fresh and improved power vector approach according to age

PURPOSE

The scientific community has established Javal's rule as a model linking refractive (RA) and keratometric (KA) astigmatism since its appearance more than 100 years ago. The aim was to improve the accuracy of this relationship according to subject's age by applying the power vector analysis. Posterior corneal curvature has also been studied.

METHODS

The IOLMaster 700 optical biometer was used to measure the corneal thickness and the radius of curvature of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces. Refractive error was determined by a non-cycloplegic subjective refraction process with trial lenses. Linear regression analyses were applied using J0 and J45 power vector components. An evaluation was carried out according to the subject's age resulting into eight regression relationships for each astigmatic vector component for each relationship.

RESULTS

A total of 2254 right eyes from 2254 healthy subjects were evaluated. A trend towards against-the-rule astigmatism (ATR) was found with aging, both for refractive astigmatism (RA) and keratometric astigmatism (KA), with 95.2% of subjects under 20 years old having with-the-rule (WTR) KA, and only 22.8% above 79 years old. The following regression equations were found between RA and KA: [Formula: see text] = 0.73 × [Formula: see text] - 0.18 (R = 0.78) and [Formula: see text] = 0.70 × [Formula: see text] + 0.04 (R = 0.69) and between RA and total corneal astigmatism (TCA): [Formula: see text] = 0.73 × [Formula: see text] + 0.13 (R=0.78) and [Formula: see text] = 0.70 × [Formula: see text] - 0.06 (R = 0.68) for the whole sample, but with sensible differences among age groups, both in the slope and in the intercept.

CONCLUSION

Ignoring the age of the subject when using Javal's rule could lead to an error in the final cylinder calculation that would increase in high astigmatisms. Applying this new power vector approach based on subject's age could improve the accuracy of the astigmatism prediction.

Performance of IOL calculation formulas that use measured posterior corneal power in eyes following myopic laser vision correction

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive accuracy of the biometer-embedded Barrett True-K TK and new total corneal power methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with prior laser vision correction (LVC) for myopia.

SETTING

Academic clinical practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR).

RESULTS

The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.

Corneal refractive error and astigmatism in patients aged 6 to 18 years with a history of retinopathy of prematurity and birth weight of <1500 g

PURPOSE

To investigate corneal refractive power (CR) and astigmatism (AS) in 6- to 18-year-old children with a history of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and birth weight of <1500 g who either did or did not undergo retinal photocoagulation (PC).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

We examined 143 eyes of 77 children in 2021. The children were divided into three groups for evaluation of CR and AS: those with a birth weight of ≥2500 g (normal birth weight [NBW] group, 13 eyes) as controls, those with spontaneously resolved ROP (sr-ROP group, 27 eyes), and those who underwent PC for treatment of ROP (PC-ROP group, 103 eyes). Swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography was used to analyze the cornea.

RESULTS

The median CR in the NBW, sr-ROP, and PC-ROP groups was 42.2 (41.3, 42.8) diopters (D), 44.5 (43.2, 45.5) D, and 45.2 (43.8, 46.6) D, respectively. The median AS in the NBW, sr-ROP, and PC-ROP groups was 1.2 (1.0, 1.5) D, 1.1 (0.8, 1.6) D, and 2.1 (1.4, 2.7) D. In the PC-ROP group, the with-the-rule astigmatic axis was 97%. In all three groups, a strong positive correlation was found between the mean anterior and posterior CR (NBW: r=0.795, sr-ROP: r=0.842, PC-ROP: r=0.890) and AS (NBW: r=0.883, sr-ROP: r=0.841, PC-ROP: r=0.860).

CONCLUSION

CR was significantly higher in the sr-ROP (p=0.013) and PC-ROP (p<0.001) groups than in the NBW group. The PC-ROP group had significantly more AS than the sr-ROP group. There was a strong correlation between the anterior and posterior CR and AS.

The predictive accuracy of Barrett toric calculator using measured posterior corneal astigmatism derived from swept source-OCT and Scheimpflug camera

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of Barrett toric calculator incorporated with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam HR versus predicted PCA.

METHODS

The predicted residual astigmatism using Barrett toric IOL calculator with predicted PCA, measured PCA from IOL Master 700 and measured PCA from Pentacam were calculated with the preoperative keratometry and intended IOL axis with modification. The vector analysis was performed to calculate the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the centroid of the prediction error and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.

RESULTS

In 57 eyes of 57 patients with mean age of 70.42 ± 10.75 years, the MAE among the three calculation methods were 0.59 ± 0.38 D (Predicted PCA), 0.60 ± 0.38 D (Measured PCA from IOL Master 700) and 0.60 ± 0.36 D (Measured PCA from Pentacam) with no significant difference, either in the whole sample, the WTR eyes and the ATR eyes (F = 0.078, 0.306 and 0.083, p = 0.925, 0.739 and 0.920, respectively). Measured PCA obtained from IOL Master 700 resulted in one level reduction (from Tn to Tn-1) in 49.12% eyes in cylindrical model selection, while measured PCA obtained from Pentacam resulted in one level reduction of toric model selection in 18.18% eyes.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggested that the incorporation of measured PCA values derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam produce comparable clinical outcome with the predicted PCA mode in Barrett toric calculator.

Comparison of Automated Keratometer and Scheimpflug Tomography for Predicting Refractive Astigmatism in Pseudophakic Eyes

PURPOSE

To analyse the correspondence between refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes with non-toric intraocular lenses.

SETTING

Yeouido St. Mary hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

DESIGN

Evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 95 eyes of 95 patients. Corneal astigmatism was measured with an automated keratometer (RK-5, Canon) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam HR, Oculus). Refractive astigmatism was compared to keratometric astigmatism (based on anterior corneal measurements only), equivalent K-reading, and total corneal astigmatism (both based on anterior and posterior corneal measurements). Vector analysis was carried out by Næser's polar value method. The accuracy was defined as the average magnitude of the vectorial difference in astigmatism (DA). Each corneal measurement was optimized in retrospect by a multiple linear regression equation between refractive and corneal astigmatism.

RESULTS

Keratometric astigmatism overestimated with-the-rule (WTR) refractive astigmatism and underestimated against-the-rule (ATR) refractive astigmatism. Several measurements based on both corneal surfaces' values did not show any statistically significant difference with respect to refractive astigmatism. The mean corneal astigmatism by total corneal refractive power (TCRP) at 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) produced the lowest mean arithmetic DA and the highest percentage of eyes with a DA ≤ 0.50 dioptre. After optimization, the accuracies of automated KA and TCRP 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Total corneal astigmatism measured by Scheimpflug tomography at a 4.0 mm zone centered on the pupil accurately reflects the refractive astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. However, the accuracy of total corneal astigmatism is not different from automated KA after optimization.

Is Astigmatism Correction Necessary for Patients With Cataract Who Have Corneal Astigmatism of Less Than 0.75 D?

PURPOSE

To investigate the proportion of patients with predicted refractive astigmatism (PRA) of 0.75 diopters (D) or greater and associated risk factors among cataract surgery candidates with low corneal astigmatism.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Guangzhou, China. Patients with cataract who had preoperative simulated keratometric astigmatism of less than 0.75 D were recruited. The PRA was calculated by Barrett toric calculator using posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) measured by the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) and corneal surgically induced astigmatism (SIA). Two corneal incision locations (temporal [0°/180°], 135° incision) and varying magnitudes (0.10 to 0.60 D) were considered for SIA. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to explore risk factors associated with PRA of 0.75 D or greater and build predictive model. Sensitivity analysis was performed using PRA threshold of 0.50 D.

RESULTS

A total of 1,750 eyes from 1,750 patients were included (mean age: 60.14 ± 13.24 years, 42.91% male, 1,010 right eyes and 740 left eyes). The 135° incision (odds ratio [OR]: 17.86) and against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism (OR: 37.55) are the major risk factors for PRA of 0.75 D or greater. Higher simulated keratometric astigmatism (OR: 2.03), larger PCA (OR: 1.64), and surgically induced astigmatism (OR: 1.29) also significantly increased the risk of PRA of 0.75 D or greater. Nomogram model were constructed with an area under curve of 0.90.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with corneal astigmatism of less than 0.75 D, temporal incision and measured PCA is preferred. Those patients with ATR astigmatism should be considered for astigmatism correction when using a 135° incision. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(12):850-855.].

Repeatability and Interobserver Reproducibility of a Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography for Measurements of Anterior, Posterior, and Total Corneal Power

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to evaluate the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained with a swept-source optical coherence tomographer (CASIA 2, Tomey, Japan) in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A total of 67 right eyes from 67 healthy subjects were enrolled. Two experienced observers measured each eye three times consecutively with the CASIA 2. Corneal power values were recorded as simulated keratometry, anterior, posterior, and total corneal power. Parameters were flattest keratometry (Kf), steepest keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism magnitude, astigmatism power vectors J0 and J45. Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of the CASIA 2 were assessed by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), test-retest repeatability (TRT), coefficients of variation (CoV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Double-angle plots were used for astigmatism vector analysis.

RESULTS

The CASIA 2 had high repeatability for all corneal power values, with Sw values ≤ 0.17 diopters (D), TRT ≤ 0.46 D, and ICCs ranging from 0.866 to 0.998. Interobserver reproducibility was also high, showing all Sw values ≤ 0.10 D, TRT ≤ 0.27 D, and ICCs ≥ 0.944. The reproducibility of the average of three consecutive measurements (Sw 0.01-0.10 D, TRT 0.03-0.27 D, ICC 0.944-0.998) was higher than the reproducibility of single measurements (Sw 0.01-0.17 D, TRT 0.03-0.47 D, ICC 0.867-0.996).

CONCLUSIONS

The CASIA 2 showed high intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility for anterior, posterior, and total corneal power measurements in 6.0-mm diameter area. In addition, we suggest that using the average of three consecutive measurements can improve reproducibility between observers, compared to single measurements only.

Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty combined with presbyopia-correcting and toric intraocular lenses - a narrative review

Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is the leading indication for EK and may coexist with cataract and presbyopia. Notably, the outcomes of phacoemulsification in FECD patients are not as favorable as those in eyes without this condition. Historically, only monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) were recommended for these patients. However, recent reports have described the implantation of Premium-IOLs (such as Multifocal IOLs, Enhanced Depth of Focus IOLs, and Toric IOLs) in FECD eyes undergoing cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK). While the results are encouraging, they are not as optimal as those from unoperated eyes, especially when comparing simultaneous procedures to sequential ones. It's advised to perform the DMEK first to improve the accuracy of IOL calculations. Still, even successfully operated eyes may experience secondary graft failure or graft rejection after DMEK. The success rate of a secondary DMEK is typically lower than that of the initial procedure. Furthermore, if the postoperative thickness after DMEK is less than anticipated, laser enhancements might not be an option. There's a pressing need for more controlled and randomized clinical trials to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of Premium-IOLs for FECD eyes. This narrative review aims to collate evidence on the use of Premium IOL technologies in eyes receiving EK and to underscore key points for surgeons performing EK combined with cataract surgery.

The Most Cited Modern Articles in Refractive Surgery (2010-2020)

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the most highly cited modern articles in refractive surgery, those published between 2010 and 2020, and compare these results to a list of the most highly cited articles in refractive surgery from all timepoints.

METHODS

The Scopus database was searched for articles pertaining to refractive surgery using multiple search terms to identify the top 100 most cited articles in refractive surgery published between 2010 and 2020. Articles were reviewed for relevance and ranked based on total citations accrued.

RESULTS

The 100 most cited modern articles in refractive surgery were identified. The article with the most citations by Sekundo et al has garnered nearly 600 citations to date. Almost all articles (88%) included in the top 100 had 200 or more citations. Intraocular lens (34 articles), keratorefractive lenticule extraction (ie, small incision lenticule extraction) (27 articles), and laser in situ keratomileusis (17 articles) were the predominant topics. Aarhus University in Denmark generated the most articles (5), whereas numerous articles originated from multiple countries, including the United States (16), United Kingdom (10), France (8), Spain (8), China (7), and Germany (7).

CONCLUSIONS

This list provides a comprehensive assessment of the most cited modern articles in refractive surgery and demonstrates key focuses and trends in the field over the past decade. Intraocular lens and keratorefractive lenticule extraction were the primary topics. There was a broader representation of procedures, topics, authors, and country of origin as compared to prior work. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(11):784-790.].

Characteristics of surgically induced astigmatism after standardized microincisional cataract surgery with a superior limbal incision

PURPOSE

To determine (1) if measurements of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) as measured by keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) differ (2) if SIA affects the magnitude and/or meridian of keratometric astigmatism (3) if SIA evolves over time.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis.

METHODS

A swept-source optical coherence tomography biometry dataset (IOLMaster700) consisting of 498 eyes (327 patients) from a tertiary care center was analyzed. For all eyes preoperative and postoperative biometric measurements at 1-month, 3-month, and 6-months postoperative visits were considered for vector analysis of SIA K and SIA TK .

RESULTS

Centroids in right and left eyes were 0.26 diopters (D) @5 degrees/0.31 D @1 degree for SIA K and 0.27 D @4 degrees/0.34 D @1 degree for SIA TK . Centroids for difference vectors K-TK in right and left eyes were 0.02 D @ 176 degrees/0.03 D @6 degrees. The mean SIA magnitudes in right and left eyes were 0.48 ± 0.41 D and 0.50 ± 0.37 D for SIA K and 0.53 ± 0.42 D and 0.54 ± 0.40 D for SIA TK . In eyes with ATR astigmatism, an increase in postoperative astigmatism magnitude was more common than a decrease. More than 30% of eyes showed changes in the meridian of more than 15 degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we observed differences in K- and TK-derived SIA, and changes in SIA magnitude over time. For postsurgical interventions, postoperative astigmatism meridian values should be measured to base treatments. Astigmatism magnitude showed a tendency to decrease for steep-meridian incisions and to increase in flat-meridian incisions.

Randomized Trial Comparing Prediction Accuracy of Two Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers

Purpose

To compare the prediction accuracy of the Argos biometer using standard keratometry to the prediction accuracy of the IOLMaster 700 biometer using Total Keratometry.

Methods

This was a randomized, prospective, single surgeon study of 80 right eyes of 80 patients that had preoperative biometry with both the Argos and IOLMaster 700 devices, followed by cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Prediction errors (directional and absolute) for each device were determined from the 1 month postoperative manifest refraction.

Results

The directional prediction error was 0.07 ± 0.32 D for the Argos and 0.08 ± 0.34 D for the IOLMaster 700. The mean of the difference in prediction error (directional) was 0.02 D, which was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The absolute prediction error was 0.21 ± 0.25 D for the Argos and 0.25 ± 0.24 D for the IOLMaster 700. The mean of the difference in absolute prediction error was 0.04 D, which was statistically significant (p < 0.004) but not clinically significant. The percentage of eyes with absolute prediction error ≤ 0.5 D was 91% (73 eyes) for the Argos and 88% (70 eyes) for the IOLMaster 700. This difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The prediction accuracies were similar between the Argos and IOLMaster 700 in eyes with normal axial length. There was a significant difference in mean absolute prediction error between devices; however, this was not clinically meaningful.

Refractive outcomes of toric intra-ocular lens implantation in cases of high posterior corneal astigmatism

Purpose

To evaluate whether the toric intra-ocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on total corneal astigmatism (TCA) in eyes with high posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) could result in a systematic over-correction or under-correction after operation.

Methods

The present study included a mono-centric retrospective study design. The data were collected from 62 consecutive eyes during uncomplicated cataract surgery by a single surgeon with a measured PCA of 0.50 diopters (D) or higher. Toric IOL calculations were made using TCA measurements. The eyes were grouped as either "with-the-rule" (WTR) or "against-the-rule" (ATR) on the basis of the steep anterior corneal meridian. The post-operative refractive astigmatic prediction error was analyzed 1 month post-operatively using the vector analysis by the Alpins method and double-angle plots method.

Results

The correction indexes were 1.14 ± 0.29 in the ATR eyes and 1.25 ± 0.18 for the WTR eyes, indicating a tendency toward over-correction. The mean over-correction was 0.22 ± 0.52D in the ATR group and 0.65 ± 0.60D in the WTR group. The magnitude of error (ME) values were significantly different from the ideal value of zero in both groups (ATR: P = 0.03; WTR: P = 0.00). No significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) in predicted residual astigmatism was found between ATR and WTR groups (0.61 ± 0.42 D versus 0.64 ± 0.39 D; P = 0.54). The ATR group yielded better results, with 48% <0.50D prediction error in the main analysis.

Conclusions

The results suggested that in cases of high PCA, the toric IOL calculation, which was performed using TCA, may cause a potential over-correction in the ATR and WTR eyes. For ATR eyes, over-correction led to slight disruption of post-operative visual quality because of the "with-the-rule" residual astigmatism after operation. Therefore, we suggested using TCA for toric IOL calculation in ATR eyes.

Comparison of corneal aberrations from anterior segment swept source OCT versus Placido-topography combined spectral domain OCT in cataract patients

BACKGROUND

To comprehensively evaluate the agreement of component corneal aberrations from the newly updated wavefront analysis software of a swept-source optical coherence tomographer (SS-OCT) and a referential Placido-topography combined OCT device in elderly cataract patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study including 103 eyes from 103 elderly patients scheduled for cataract surgery that were measured on the same day with a SS-OCT (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany) device and a Placido-topography combined OCT device (CSO, Italy). Anterior, total, and posterior corneal wavefront aberrations were evaluated for their mean differences and limits of agreement (LoA) via Bland-Altman plots. Vector analysis was additionally employed to compare corneal astigmatism measurements in dioptric vector space.

RESULTS

Mean differences of all corneal aberrometric parameters did not exceed 0.05 μm. Total corneal aberrations were not significantly different from 0 except for vertical coma (- 0.04 μm; P = 0.003), spherical aberration (- 0.01 μm, P < 0.001), and root mean square (RMS) higher-order aberration (HOA) (0.03 μm, P = 0.04). The 95% LoA for total corneal aberration parameters between both devices were - 0.46 to 0.42 μm for horizontal astigmatism, - 0.37 to 0.41 μm for oblique astigmatism, - 0.19 to 0.17 μm for oblique trefoil, - 0.33 to 0.25 μm for vertical coma, - 0.20 to 0.22 μm for horizontal coma, - 0.22 to 0.20 μm for horizontal trefoil, - 0.11 to 0.08 μm for spherical aberration, and - 0.22 to 0.28 μm for RMS HOA. Vector analysis revealed no statistically significant mean differences for anterior, total, and posterior corneal astigmatism in dioptric vector space.

CONCLUSION

In eyes undergoing cataract surgery with a regular elderly cornea, corneal wavefront analysis from the SS-OCT device showed functional equivalency to the reference device. Nevertheless, clinically relevant higher order aberration parameters should be interpreted with caution for surgical decision-making.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of Eyecryl toric and Alcon toric intra-ocular lenses - A real world study

Purpose

To compare the visual outcomes and residual astigmatism following implantation of Eyecryl toric versus Alcon AcrySof IQ toric intra-ocular lenses (IOLs).

Methods

This retrospective, observational study included 143 eyes of 141 patients who underwent phaco-emulsification, followed by implantation of Eyecryl toric IOL (n = 83 eyes) or Alcon toric IOL (n = 60 eyes) in an eye hospital in South India from 2018 to 2021. At 1 month post-op, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA), and residual astigmatism of the toric IOL were compared and analyzed.

Results

The mean pre-op corneal astigmatism was 2.02 ± 0.81 D and 1.70 ± 0.68 D in the Alcon and Eyecryl groups, respectively (P = 0.005). The mean post-op corneal astigmatism at 1 month was 0.50 ± 0.51 D and 0.36 ± 0.42 D in the Alcon and Eyecryl groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference between them (P = 0.87). The mean post-op UCVA in logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) at 1 month was similar between the groups at 0.17 ± 0.18 and 0.17 ± 0.16 in the Alcon and Eyecryl groups, respectively (P = 0.98). The mean post-op BCVA in logMAR at 1 month was 0.06 ± 0.09 and 0.03 ± 0.10 in the Alcon and Eyecryl groups, respectively (P = 0.02).

Conclusion

Both Eyecryl toric and Alcon AcrySof IQ toric IOLs showed comparable post-operative outcomes in terms of UCVA and residual astigmatism. The post-op BCVA was clinically similar between groups but statistically better in the Eyecryl toric group.

Comparison of the Barrett toric calculator using measured and predicted posterior corneal astigmatism and the Kane and Abulafia-Koch calculators

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the Barrett toric calculator with measured and predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA and PPCA, respectively), the Abulafia-Koch (AK) formula, and the toric Kane formula.

SETTING

Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

METHODS

Consecutive cases of patients who underwent uneventful cataract extraction surgery with implantation of a toric intraocular lens between March 2015 and July 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. 1 eligible eye from each patient was included. The predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated using each method and compared with the postoperative refractive astigmatism to give the prediction error.

RESULTS

80 eyes of 80 patients were included in this study. The mean centroid and the mean and median absolute prediction errors using Kane (0.25 diopters [D] ± 0.54 @ 6 degrees, 0.50 D ± 0.31 and 0.45 D, respectively) were significantly different compared with MPCA (0.12 D ± 0.52 @ 16 degrees, P < .001, .44 D ± 0.28 and 0.36 D, P = .027, respectively), PPCA (0.09 D ± 0.49 @ 12 degrees, P < .001, .41 D ± 0.27 and 0.35 D, P < .001, respectively), and AK (0.11 D ± 0.49 @ 11 degrees, P < .001, .42 D ± 0.27 and 0.35 D, P = .004, respectively). No significant differences were found between the calculators in the predictability rates within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.

CONCLUSIONS

The measured posterior corneal curvature in the Barrett calculator yielded comparable outcomes to its prediction by the Barrett and AK formulas. The Kane calculator showed a slight against-the-rule prediction error compared with the other methods, resulting in a small higher median absolute error with marginal clinical importance.

Normative Topographic Anterior and Posterior Corneal Astigmatism: Axis Distribution and Its Relations with Ocular and Biometric Parameters

Corneal astigmatism correction is a key factor when planning refractive treatment for ametropies with intraocular lenses. We aim to obtain normative anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism (ACA and PCA, respectively) data in a local population and to describe their axis distribution and their association with other parameters. A total of 795 patients with no ocular diseases were evaluated with corneal tomography and optical biometry. Only data of the right eye were included. Mean ACA and PCA were 1.01 ± 0.79 and 0.34 ± 0.17 D, respectively. Vertical steep axis distribution was 73.5% for ACA and 93.3% for PCA. Axis orientation between ACA and PCA matched best for vertical orientation (especially 90° to 120°). Vertical ACA orientation frequency decreased with age, with a more positive sphere and less ACA. Vertical PCA orientation frequency increased with higher PCA. Eyes with vertical ACA orientation were younger and showed a greater white-to-white (WTW) measurement, anterior corneal elevations, ACA and PCA. Eyes with vertical PCA orientation were younger and showed greater anterior corneal elevations and PCA. Normative ACA and PCA data in a Spanish population were presented. Steep axis orientations presented differences with age, WTW, anterior corneal elevations and astigmatism.

Keratometry Agreement Between Two Swept-Source OCT Devices in Healthy and Post-refractive Surgery Eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the keratometry agreement between two swept-source devices for healthy and post-refractive surgery eyes and compare them.

METHODS

One hundred volunteers between 20 and 55 years of age were recruited for this study including both healthy and post-refractive surgery eyes. Three consecutive measurements of simulated keratometry (Sim K), posterior keratometry (PK), and total keratometry (TK) were obtained with the IOLMaster 700 and Anterion. The agreement was assessed through the Bland-Altman method. Limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated as mean difference ±1.96·SD and it represents the 95% of the differences between devices.

RESULTS

For both groups, Sim K measurements exhibited a mean difference close to 0 and within a range of ±0.30 and ±0.36 diopters (D) for the control and post-refractive surgery groups, respectively. Meanwhile, the IOLMaster 700 provided flatter PK values (0.30 D on average) for both groups. In general, the post-refractive surgery group exhibited slightly greater mean differences and wider 95% LoA than the control group for Sim K and PK. Steeper TK values were obtained by the IOLMaster in both groups (control = 0.50 D and post-refractive surgery = 0.75 D). TK differences between devices were significantly greater in the post-refractive surgery group (ranging from 0.38 to 1.14 D) compared to the control group (ranging from 0.15 to 0.85 D).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOLMaster 700 and Anterion are not interchangeable for TK measurements and eyes that had corneal refractive surgery even decreased the agreement between devices. Differences between devices for Sim K and PK measurements should be clinically judged, particularly in eyes with previous corneal surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):347-353.].

Comparison of biometry measurements and intraocular lens power prediction between 2 SS-OCT-based biometers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the agreement in biometry measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction between the Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700.

SETTING

Institutional.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

Patients were evaluated before cataract surgery using both devices on the same visit. Axial length, anterior and posterior keratometry, anterior chamber depth, corneal diameter (CD), central corneal thickness, and lens thickness were recorded by both devices. The agreement in measurements and in IOL power calculations was evaluated using the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula with either predicted or measured posterior keratometry.

RESULTS

In total, 402 eyes of 402 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 72.0 ± 9.2 years. Clinically, mean differences in measured variables were small, albeit slightly larger for posterior flat and steep keratometry (0.43 diopters [D] and 0.42 D, respectively). The measurement correlation and agreement between the devices were good for all variables with slightly lower agreement in CD measurements. Consistent bias was seen in measurements of posterior flat and steep keratometry. Good agreement was also found in anterior and posterior astigmatism measurements. Good IOL power calculation agreement was found using either predicted posterior keratometry (95% limits of agreement [LoA] of -0.40 to +0.30 D) or measured posterior keratometry (95% LoA of -0.45 to +0.40 D). The agreement was within ±0.5 D in 394 eyes (98.0%) using predicted posterior keratometry and in 386 eyes (96.0%) using measured posterior keratometry.

CONCLUSIONS

The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show strong agreement in biometry measurements and IOL power prediction by the BU-II formula using either standard or total corneal keratometry and can be used interchangeably.

Comparative evaluation of intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett's toric calculator in toric intraocular lens implantation

Purpose

Barrett toric calculator (BTC) is known for its accuracy in toric IOL (tIOL) calculation over standard calculators; however, there is no study in literature to compare it with real-time intraoperative aberrometry (IA). The aim was to compare the accuracy of BTC and IA in predicting refractive outcomes in tIOL implantation.

Methods

This was an institution-based prospective, observational study. Patients undergoing routine phacoemulsification with tIOL implantation were enrolled. Biometry was obtained from Lenstar-LS 900 and IOL power calculated using online BTC; however, IOL was implanted as per IA (Optiwave Refractive Analysis, ORA, Alcon) recommendation. Postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) and spherical equivalent (SE) were recorded at one month, and respective prediction errors (PEs) were calculated using predicted refractive outcomes for both methods. The primary outcome measure was a comparison between mean PE with IA and BTC, and secondary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA), postoperative RA, and SE at one month. SPSS Version-21 was used; P < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Thirty eyes of 29 patients were included. Mean arithmetic and mean absolute PEs for RA were comparable between BTC (-0.70 ± 0.35D; 0.70 ± 0.34D) and IA (0.77 ± 0.32D; 0.80 ± 0.39D) (P = 0.09 and 0.09, respectively). Mean arithmetic PE for residual SE was significantly lower for BTC (-0.14 ± 0.32D) than IA (0.001 ± 0.33D) (-0.14 ± 0.32D; P = 0.002); however, there was no difference between respective mean absolute PEs (0.27 ± 0.21 D; 0.27 ± 0.18; P = 0.80). At one-month, mean UCDVA, RA, and SE were 0.09 ± 0.10D, -0.57 ± 0.26D, and -0.18 ± 0.27D, respectively.

Conclusion

Both IA and BTC give reliable and comparable refractive results for tIOL implantation.

Agreement of Total Keratometry and Posterior Keratometry Among IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare total keratometry (TK) and posterior keratometry (PK) obtained by two swept-source optical biometers (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) and one Scheimpflug-based topography (Pentacam AXL).

Methods

The TK and PK in cataract surgery candidates obtained by IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), limit of agreement, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement.

Results

One hundred two patients with a mean age of 68.21 ± 8.70 years were included. There were significant differences among IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL in the mean TK (TKm) (44.23 ± 1.59 diopters [D] vs. 43.25 ± 1.53 D vs. 43.94 ± 1.68 D; all P < 0.001), mean PK (PKm; -5.90 ± 0.24 D vs. -6.25 ± 0.25 D vs. -6.37 ± 0.26 D; all P < 0.001) and TK-J0 (-0.34 ± 0.65 D vs. -0.23 ± 0.53 D vs. -0.12 ± 0.62 D; all P < 0.001). We also observed significant differences in PK-J45 between IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL as well as between CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL (both P < 0.001). There was a good agreement in TKm, TK-J0, TK-J45, and PK-J0 (ICC = 0.887, 0.880, 0.751, and 0.807, respectively), a moderate agreement in PK-J45 (ICC = 0.626), and a poor agreement in PKm (ICC = 0.498) among these 3 biometers.

Conclusions

TK, PK, and the corresponding astigmatism obtained by IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL showed significant differences, and could not be used interchangeably.

Translational Relevance

Our study may help to guide preoperative keratometry measurement for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and astigmatism evaluation for patients with cataract.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Based on Total Keratometry in Patients With Flat and Steep Corneas

PURPOSE

To analyze the accuracy of the current intraocular lens power calculation formulas using standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) data in patients with flat and steep corneas.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive cross-sectional study.

METHODS

An optical biometer with swept-source optical coherence tomography was used in this retrospective study. The standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportion of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.5 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were calculated to evaluate the refractive outcomes of each formula.

RESULTS

A total of 231 eyes from 231 patients were included. In the entire study cohort, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formula using TK data showed the lowest SD (0.383) and MAE (0.30) and the highest percentage of cases with a PE within ±0.5 D (81.4%). In the flat keratometry group, the EVO (P = .042), Haigis (P = .043), Hoffer Q (P = .038) and Holladay 1 (P = .013) formulas using TK data had significantly lower SD than using K data. The EVO formula using TK data showed the lowest SD (0.357) and MAE (0.28). In the steep keratometry group, the Hoffer Q (P = .036) and SRK/T (P = .029) formulas using TK data had significantly lower SD than using K data. The BUII TK formula showed the lowest SD (0.431), MedAE (0.26), and MAE (0.32).

CONCLUSION

The TK data set showed a better trend of refractive outcomes, especially in the flat and steep keratometry groups. EVO (TK) and BUII TK formulas were suggested for eyes with K values lower than 42 D and K values higher than 46 D, respectively.

Impact of Total Corneal Astigmatism Estimated With the Abulafia-Koch Formula Versus Measured With a SS-OCT Biometer on the Refractive Outcomes of a Toric Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the impact of total corneal astigmatism (TCA) estimated with the Abulafia-Koch formula (TCA^ABU) versus measured by Total Keratometry (TK), swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) coupled with telecentric keratometry (TCA^TK) on the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

Two hundred one eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (XY1AT; HOYA Corporation) were included in this single-center, retrospective study. For each eye, TCA^ABU (estimated from the anterior keratometry values measured with the IOLMaster 700 [Carl Zeiss Meditec AG]) and TCA^TK (measured using TK IOLMaster 700) were entered into the HOYA Toric Calculator. Patients were operated on based on TCA^ABU. For each eye, centroid and mean absolute error in predicted residual astigmatism (EPA) were calculated according to TCA used (TCA^ABU or TCA^TK). The cylinder power and the axis of the posterior chamber IOL were compared.

RESULTS

The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.07 ± 0.12 logMAR, the mean spherical equivalent was 0.11 ± 0.40 D, and mean residual astigmatism was 0.35 ± 0.36 D. Mean centroid EPA was 0.28 D at 132° with TCA^ABU and 0.35 D at 148° with TCA^TK (P(x) < .001; P(y) < .01). Mean absolute EPA was 0.46 ± 0.32 D with TCA^ABU and 0.50 ± 0.37 D with TCA^TK (P < .01). In the with-the-rule astigmatism subgroup, a deviation from the target of less than 0.50 D was achieved in 68% of eyes with TCA^ABU versus 50% of eyes with TCA^TK. The proposed posterior chamber IOL was different depending on the calculation methods used in 86% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Both calculation methods showed excellent results. However, the predictability error was significantly reduced when TCA^ABU was used compared to TCA^TK measured with the IOLMaster 700 in the whole cohort. Finally, TCA was overestimated by TK in the with-the-rule astigmatism subgroup. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(3):171-179.].