Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in axial myopia

Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios.

METHODS

Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III.

RESULTS

Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Agreement between IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL for IOL power measurement in patients with high myopia

PURPOSE

The anterior segment in individuals with high myopia has different features compared to those without myopia. IOLMaster 700 and Oculus Pentacam AXL are two accurate optical biometers. Both devices measure the cornea differently and thus yield different results when measuring intraocular lens (IOL) power. The purpose of this study is to assess the agreement of the IOL power calculation between IOLMaster 700 and Oculus Pentacam AXL in patients with high myopia.

METHODS

A prospective, analytical cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the agreement between the IOL power calculation with IOLMaster 700 and Oculus Pentacam AXL. In this study, 44 eyes were examined using Oculus Pentacam AXL and IOLMaster 700, and IOL power was calculated using the Barret Universal II formula and the AMO Sensar AR40E. The Bland-Altman plot was used to evaluate the agreement between the two devices.

RESULTS

Based on the IOLMaster 700 examination, 44 eyes with high myopia had axial lengths ranging from 26.05 to 34.02 mm. The mean IOL power was 8.26 ± 4.755 and 8.58 ± 4.776 based on IOLMaster 700 and Oculus Pentacam AXL, respectively. The Bland-Altman plot revealed good agreement between the two devices, with a mean difference of -0.3182 in the IOL power calculation and a 95% LoA of 0.88099-0.24462 with a 95% confidence interval.

CONCLUSION

Both devices showed good agreement in the IOL power calculation in patients with high myopia.

Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry versus modern preoperative methods in post-myopic laser vision correction eyes undergoing cataract surgery with capsular tension ring placement

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry (IWA) versus modern intraocular lens formulas in post-myopic laser vision correction (LVC) patients undergoing cataract surgery with capsular tension ring placement.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review conducted at an academic outpatient center. All post-myopic LVC eyes undergoing cataract surgery with IWA from a single surgeon from 05/2017 to 12/2019 were included. All patients received a capsular tension ring (CTR). Mean numerical error (MNE), median numerical error (MedNE), and percentages of prediction error within 0.50D, 0.75D, and 1.00D were calculated for the above formulas.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven post-myopic LVC eyes from 18 patients were included. In post-myopic LVC, MNE with Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA), Barrett True K (BTK), Haigis, Haigis-L, Shammas, SRK/T, Hill-RBF v3.0, and W-K AL-adjusted Holladay 1 were + 0.224, - 0.094, + 0.193, - 0.231, - 0.372, + 1.013, + 0.860, and + 0.630 (F = 8.49, p < 0.001). MedNE were + 0.125, - 0.145, + 0.175, + 0.333, + 0.333, + 1.100, + 0.880, and + 0.765 (F = 7.89, p < 0.001), respectively. BTK provided improved accuracy in both MNE (p < 0.001) and MedNE (p = .033) when compared to ORA in pairwise analysis. If the ORA vs. BTK-suggested IOL power were routinely selected, 30% and 15% of eyes would have projected hyperopic outcomes, respectively (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that in post-myopic LVC eyes undergoing cataract surgery with CTRs, BTK performed more accurately than ORA with regard to accuracy and yielded a lower percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes. Haigis, Haigis-L, and Shammas yielded similar results to ORA with regard to accuracy and percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes. On average, Shammas and Haigis-L suggested IOLs that would yield outcomes more myopic than expected when compared to BTK.

The accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas based on artificial intelligence in highly myopic eyes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

To systematically compare and rank the accuracy of AI-based intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas and traditional IOL formulas in highly myopic eyes.

Methods

We screened PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published from inception to April 2023. The following outcome data were collected: mean absolute error (MAE), percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopters (D), and median absolute error (MedAE). The network meta-analysis was conducted by R 4.3.0 and STATA 17.0.

Results

Twelve studies involving 2,430 adult myopic eyes (with axial lengths >26.0 mm) that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with mono-focal IOL implantation were included. The network meta-analysis of 21 formulas showed that the top three AI-based formulas, as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. The three formulas had the lowest MedAE and were more accurate than traditional vergence formulas, such as SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Hoffer Q regarding MAE, percentage of eyes with PE within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D.

Conclusions

The top AI-based formulas for calculating IOL power in highly myopic eyes were XGBoost, Hill-RBF, and Kane. They were significantly more accurate than traditional vergence formulas and ranked better than formulas with Wang-Koch AL modifications or newer generations of formulas such as Barrett and Olsen.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022335969.

Prediction accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry compared with preoperative biometry formulae for intraocular lens power selection

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry to preoperative biometry formulae for predicting intraocular lens power.

DESIGN

Retrospective, consecutive case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eyes undergoing cataract extraction with at least 1 month of follow-up after surgery at an ambulatory surgical centre in Toronto.

METHODS

Consecutive sample of 228 cataract extractions with monofocal, trifocal, or toric intraocular lens implantation from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. The spherical equivalent was predicted preoperatively with Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), SRK/T, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis, and HofferQ using biometry measurements and intraoperatively with wavefront aberrometry. The primary outcomes were mean prediction error and proportion of eyes with a spherical equivalent within 0.5 D of the refractive target at postoperative month 1.

RESULTS

The analysis included 159 eyes with 52% females and a mean age of 69.4 years. Formulae with the lowest mean prediction error were Hill-RBF (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), Barrett Universal II (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), intraoperative aberrometry (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), SRK/T (0.33 D ± 0.02 D), Holladay II (0.34 D ± 0.03 D), Holladay I (0.35 D ± 0.02 D), Haigis (0.37 D ± 0.02 D), and HofferQ (0.42 D ± 0.02 D). There were no statistically significant differences between intraoperative aberrometry and the preoperative formulae. Formulae with the highest proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of the refractive target were intraoperative aberrometry (82%), Barrett Universal II (81%), Hill-RBF (80%), SRK/T (77%), Holladay II (76%), Holladay I (75%), Haigis (71%), and HofferQ (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative aberrometry and modern preoperative biometry formulae are equally effective at reaching the refractive target. In normal eyes, intraoperative aberrometry does not appear to provide any additional benefit to modern prediction formulae.

Intraoperative aberrometry: an update on applications and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is now a large body of experience with intraoperative aberrometry. This review aims to synthesize available data regarding intraoperative aberrometry applications and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) System utilizes Talbot-moiré interferometry and is the only commercially available intraoperative aberrometry device. There are few studies that include all-comers undergoing intraoperative aberrometry-assisted cataract surgery, as most studies examine routine patients only or atypical eyes only. In non-post-refractive cases, studies have consistently shown a small but statistically significant benefit in spherical equivalent refractive outcome for intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative calculations. In studies examining axial length extremes, most studies have shown intraoperative aberrometry to perform similarly to preoperative calculations. Amongst post-refractive cases, post-myopic ablation cases appear to benefit the most from intraoperative aberrometry. For toric intraocular lenses (IOLs), intraoperative aberrometry may be used for refining IOL power (toricity and spherical equivalent) and alignment, and most studies show intraoperative aberrometry to achieve low postoperative residual astigmatism.

SUMMARY

Intraoperative aberrometry can be utilized as an adjunct to preoperative planning and surgeon's judgment to optimize cataract surgery refractive outcomes. Non-post-refractive cases, post-myopic ablation eyes, and toric intraocular lenses may have the greatest demonstrated benefit in intraoperative aberrometry studies to date, but other eyes may also benefit from intraoperative aberrometry use.

Intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative biometry for intraocular lens power selection in patients with axial hyperopia

Purpose

This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and compare it with conventional IOL formulas.

Methods

This was a prospective case series. Eyes with visually significant cataract and axial hyperopia (AL <22.0 mm) underwent IA-assisted phacoemulsification with posterior chamber IOL (Alcon AcrySof IQ). Postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) was compared with predicted SE to calculate the outcomes with different formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, Barrett Universal Ⅱ and Hill-RBF). Accuracy of intraoperative aberrometer was compared with other formulas in terms of mean absolute prediction error (MAE), percentage of patients within 0.5 D and 1 D of their target, and percentage of patients going into hyperopic shift.

Results

Sixty-five eyes (57 patients) were included. In terms of MAE, both Hoffer Q (MAE = 0.30) and IA (MAE = 0.32) were significantly better than Haigis, SRK/T, and Barrett Universal Ⅱ (P < 0.05). Outcomes within ±0.5 D of the target were maximum with Hoffer Q (80%), superior to IA (Hoffer Q > IA > Holladay 2 > Hill-RBF > Haigis > SRK/T > Barrett Universal Ⅱ). Hoffer Q resulted in minimum hyperopic shift (30.76%) followed by Hill-RBF (38.46%), Holladay 2 (38.46%), Haigis (43.07%), and then IA (46.15%), SRK/T (50.76%) and Barrett Universal Ⅱ (53.84%).

Conclusion

IA was more effective (statistically significant) in predicting IOL power than Haigis, SRK/T, and Barrett Universal Ⅱ although it was equivalent to Hoffer Q. Hoffer Q was superior to all formulas in terms of percentage of patients within 0.5 D of their target refractions and percentage of patients going into hyperopic shift.

Application of total keratometry in ten intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes

Background

The accuracy of using total keratometry (TK) value in recent IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes remained unknown.

Methods

Highly myopic patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were prospectively enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At one month postoperatively, standard deviation (SD) of the prediction errors (PEs), mean and median absolute error (MedAE) of 103 highly myopic eyes were back-calculated and compared among ten formulas, including XGboost, RBF 3.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Cooke K6, Haigis, SRK/T, and Wang-Koch modifications of Haigis and SRK/T formulas, using either TK or standard keratometry (K) value.

Results

In highly myopic eyes, despite good agreement between TK and K (P > 0.05), larger differences between the two were associated with smaller central corneal thickness (P < 0.05). As to the refractive errors, TK method showed no differences compared to K method. The XGBoost, RBF 3.0 and Kane ranked top three when considering SDs of PEs. Using TK value, the XGboost calculator was comparable with the RBF 3.0 formula (P > 0.05), which both presented smaller MedAEs than others (all P < 0.05). As for the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 0.75 D of PE, the XGBoost TK showed comparable percentages with the RBF 3.0 TK formula (74.76% vs. 66.99%, or 90.29% vs. 87.38%, P > 0.05), and statistically larger percentages than the other eight formulas (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Highly myopic eyes with thinner corneas tend to have larger differences between TK and K. The XGboost enhancement calculator and RBF 3.0 formula using TK showed the most promising outcomes in highly myopic eyes.

The Use of Intraoperative Aberrometry in Normal Eyes: An Analysis of Intraocular Lens Selection in Scenarios of Disagreement

PURPOSE

To compare prediction error outcomes between the Optiwave Refractive Analysis System (ORA) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and two modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas (Hill-RBF2.0 [HRBF] and Barrett Universal II [BUII]), and further analyze IOL selection in scenarios of disagreement between methods.

METHODS

Patients with no previous history of corneal refractive surgery who underwent cataract extraction and had intraoperative aberrometry measurements between October 2016 and December 2019 were analyzed. The prediction error for the ORA, HRBF, and BUII were calculated based on the postoperative manifest refraction. Further analysis was performed evaluating prediction error for scenarios of disagreement between the three methods.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 281 eyes were included. The mean absolute prediction errors were 0.28 diopters (D) (ORA), 0.31 D (HRBF), and 0.33 D (BUII) (P < .05). In instances when the IOL recommended by the ORA was in disagreement with what was selected preoperatively, there was no benefit when the lens recommended by the ORA was selected based on anecdotal experience. When further analyzing these instances of disagreement, selecting the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power results in improved refractive outcomes: the ORA resulted in more eyes within ±0.25 diopters (D) of predicted spherical error (65% ORA, 37% HRBF, 32% BUII; P = .004) and fewer hyperopic surprises (5% ORA, 15% HRBF, 24% BUII; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

In normal eyes without previous corneal refractive surgery, intraoperative aberrometry is not different from to two modern preoperative IOL formulas. Placing the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power than that selected preoperatively results in better refractive outcomes. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(5):304-309.].

Predictive accuracy of an intraoperative aberrometry device for a new monofocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate refractive outcomes for the Clareon monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) in terms of achieved target refraction for the ORA (ALCON) intraoperative wavefront aberrometry device and preoperative noncontact biometry.

SETTING

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

DESIGN

Prospective observational clinical trial.

METHODS

Patients with bilateral age-related cataracts undergoing phacoemulsification, either by delayed sequential surgery or on the same day, were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were an increased risk for refractive surprise or complicated surgery. Implanted IOL power was based on noncontact optical biometry data using the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula, optimized for the Clareon IOL. Postoperative subjective refraction was measured 4 to 6 weeks after surgery. Catquest-9SF questionnaires were completed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

100 eyes (51 patients) were included. The percentages of eyes within 1.0 diopters (D), 0.75 D, 0.50 D, and 0.25 D of target for ORA vs BU-II were 84% (84 eyes), 72% (72 eyes), 57% (57 eyes), and 21% (21 eyes) vs 97% (97 eyes), 88% (88 eyes), 77% (77 eyes), and 53% (53 eyes), respectively. Mean absolute prediction error was significantly higher for ORA vs preoperative biometry (P < .001). After global optimization, the prediction accuracy of ORA improved significantly (P < .001). Catquest-9SF questionnaires showed improved levels of ability at 3 months after surgery (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed lower percentages of eyes within target refraction for ORA (prior to lens constant optimization) compared with the BU-II formula when implanting the Clareon IOL. However, prediction accuracy of ORA improved significantly after global optimization. Therefore, further intraoperative measurements, postoperative measurements, and optimization are needed to improve the ORA prediction for this IOL.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry in Intraocular Lens Implantation Between Myopic Eyes with Emmetropia and Myopia Targets

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) for predicting postoperative refraction between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective analysis included patients with axial myopia (axial length ≥ 25.0 mm) who underwent uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery with IA to achieve emmetropia (plano to −0.5 D) or intentional myopia (−2.5 D to −5.0 D). Preoperative ocular biometry was performed in all eyes using an IOLMaster. Refractive prediction errors in IA were compared between eyes with emmetropia and myopia targets. Refractive prediction errors in IA for both groups were also compared with those predicted by intraocular lens power calculation formulas including the SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas.

Results

Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients with a target of emmetropia and 22 eyes of 22 patients with a target of intentional myopia were included in the final analysis. The mean numerical error was significantly different from zero (myopic trend) in myopia-targeted eyes (−0.37 ± 0.54 D, one-sample t-test, P = 0.004, 95% confidence interval: −0.61 to −0.14), while it was close to zero in emmetropia-targeted eyes. The mean absolute error was significantly smaller in emmetropia-targeted eyes (0.28 ± 0.27 D) than in myopia-targeted eyes (0.51 ± 0.41 D, P = 0.01). IA was revealed as the most accurate method for predicting postoperative refraction in eyes with emmetropia target, whereas Barrett Universal II formula was found to be the most accurate for eyes with myopia target.

Conclusion

In patients with axial myopia, the performance of IA was altered when targeting intentional myopia compared with emmetropia. Myopic shift in the refractive outcome should be considered when IA is used to target myopia.

Refractive Accuracy of Barrett True-K vs Intraoperative Aberrometry for IOL Power Calculation in Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes

Purpose

To compare the refractive predictability of intraoperative aberrometry (IA, ORA, Alcon) and Barrett True-K/Universal II formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes.

Methods

Retrospective study of normal and post-corneal refractive surgery eyes that underwent cataract surgery with IA at tertiary academic center. Preoperatively, IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (normal eyes) or Barrett True-K (post-corneal refractive surgery eyes) formulas. Intraoperatively, aphakic IA measurements were used for IOL power calculations. Mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated. Refractive predictability was also evaluated in short, normal, and long eyes.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-three eyes were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the MAE of preoperative formulas and IA for post-hyperopic laser vision correction (LVC), post-myopic LVC, post-radial keratotomy (RK) and normal eyes. For prediction error within ±0.5 D in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes, range of agreement between Barrett True-K and IA ranged from 28% (7/25) of the time in post-RK eyes to 49% (40/81) of the time in post-hyperopic LVC; the corresponding value for Barrett Universal II/IA was 62% (64/103) in normal eyes. When there was disagreement, IA outperformed Barrett True-K in post-hyperopic LVC eyes and Barrett formula outperformed IA in post-myopic LVC, post-RK, and normal eyes.

Conclusion

IA appears to be comparable to Barrett formulas for IOL power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. In post-hyperopic LVC, IA yields better results compared to Barrett True-K formula; in real-life scenarios, IA reveals statistical advantage over the Barrett True-K no history formula for eyes post-hyperopic LVC.

Accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in Marfan lens subluxation patients with in-the-bag IOLs and implantation of scleral-sutured single-eyelet modified capsular tension rings

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas for the prediction of postoperative refraction in lens subluxation in Marfan syndrome.

SETTING

Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

DESIGN

Consecutive retrospective clinical observational case series.

METHODS

60 eligible eyes with lens subluxation from 39 young patients with Marfan syndrome (8.53 ± 4.38 years) underwent phacoemulsification combined with single-eyelet modified capsular tension ring (MCTR) and IOL implantation. The prediction error values with mean zero out (relative prediction error) and their absolute values (AE) were calculated.

RESULTS

Generally, the SRK/T formula with Wang-Koch (WK) adjustment had the lowest median AE at 0.418 diopters (D), and the Holladay 1 with WK adjustment had the lowest mean AE at 0.499 D. The median AE of the other 10 formulas, in order from lowest to highest, were Haigis with WK (0.494 D), Holladay 1 with WK (0.495 D), Hoffer Q with WK (0.508 D), Haigis (0.525 D), T2 (0.542 D), Hoffer Q (0.624 D), SRK/T and Holladay 1 (0.660 D), Super (0.680 D), and Barrett Universal II (0.714 D) formulas. Haigis formula was found to be statistically significantly different from SRK/T, Holladay 1, and Barrett Universal II (all 3 P < .001) but not Hoffer Q (P = .236) formula.

CONCLUSIONS

The Haigis formula was recommended for young Marfan lens subluxation patients with in-the-bag IOLs and scleral-sutured single-eyelet MCTR implantation. WK adjustments were successful in those cases where the axial length was longer than 25.0 mm.

Refractive Outcomes Using Intraoperative Aberrometry for Highly Myopic, Highly Hyperopic, and Post-refractive Eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether intraoperative aberrometry improves the accuracy of refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in highly myopic, highly hyperopic, and post-refractive eyes.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective review compared the spherical equivalent of postoperative refraction to that predicted by the Barrett Universal II formula versus Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) for highly myopic and hyperopic eyes and to the Barrett True K formula versus ORA for post-refractive eyes. The number and magnitude of lens changes were analyzed and used to determine in how many cases refractive surprises were affected by ORA, with additional subanalysis of outcomes based on average keratometry values.

RESULTS

ORA led to a change in the lens power implanted in 48% (96 of 198) of eyes, and prevented hyperopic surprise in 27% (15 of 55) and excess myopia in 46% (19 of 41). Steeper keratometry values correlated with more frequent changes on ORA-recommended implanted intraocular lens (P = .0031). ORA led to a similar percentage of eyes falling within ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 diopters compared to the Barrett Universal II and Barrett True K formulas. In post-refractive eyes, ORA led to a similar mean absolute error when compared to the Barrett True K formula (P = .62). For highly myopic eyes with an axial length of greater than 27 mm, ORA demonstrated a trend toward lower mean absolute error when compared to the Barrett Universal II formula (P = .076).

CONCLUSIONS

ORA demonstrated similar refractive results to the Barrett True K formula in post-refractive eyes and to the Barrett Universal II formula in highly myopic and hyper-opic eyes and may provide additional benefit for eyes with steeper corneas or an axial length of greater than 27 mm. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(9):609-615.].

Comparison of refractive prediction for intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett True K no history formula in cataract surgery patients with prior radial keratotomy

PURPOSE

To compare prediction errors of the Barrett True K No History (Barrett TKNH) formula and intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS

A retrospective, non-randomized study of all patients with RK who underwent cataract surgery using IA at the UCHealth Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center from 2014 to 2019 was conducted. Refraction prediction error (RPE) for IA and Barrett TKNH was compared. General linear modelling accounting for the correlation between eyes was used to determine whether absolute RPE differed significantly between Barrett TKNH and IA. Outcome by number of RK cuts was also compared between the two methods.

RESULTS

Forty-seven eyes (31 patients) were included. The mean RPEs for Barrett TKNH and IA were 0.04 ± 0.92D and 0.01 ± 0.92D, respectively, neither was significantly different than zero (p = 0.77, p = 0.91). The median absolute RPEs were 0.50D and 0.48D, respectively (p = 0.70). The refractive outcome fell within ± 0.50D of prediction for 51.1% of eyes with Barrett TKNH and 55.3% with IA, and 80.8% were within ± 1.00D for both techniques. Mean absolute RPE increased with a higher number of RK cuts (grouped into < 8 cuts and ≥ 8 cuts) for both Barrett TKNH (0.35D and 0.74D, p = 0.008) and IA (0.30D and 0.80D, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant difference between Barrett TKNH and IA in predicting postoperative refractive error in eyes with prior RK. Both are reasonable methods for choosing intraocular lens power. Eyes with more RK cuts have higher prediction errors.

A Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in High Myopia

PURPOSE

To comparatively evaluate the accuracy of newer intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas and common third-generation formulas after Wang-Koch adjustment in the prediction of postoperative refraction in highly myopic eyes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including eyes with high myopia that had uncomplicated cataract surgery with implantation of an AcrySof MA60MA IOL (power range: -5.00 to +5.00 diopters [D]) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc). All patients underwent optical biometry (Carl Zeiss IOLMaster 500 and IOLMaster 700, and Allegro Biograph) and the postoperative spherical equivalent for the implanted IOL was estimated using SRK/T, Holladay 1 (both Wang-Koch adjusted), Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Kane, Ladas, and Hill-RBF v2.0 formulas. Outcomes included the median absolute prediction error (MedAE) and the proportion of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D of the preoperative prediction.

RESULTS

Eighty-two eyes with a mean axial length of 30.89 ± 1.85 mm were included. The MedAE in ascending order was Hill-RBF v2.0 0.31 D, Kane 0.33 D, Barrett 0.36 D, Holladay I_wk 0.37 D, SRK/T_wk 0.37 D, Holladay I_wk 0.43 D, Haigis_ULIB 0.54 D, and Ladas 0.61 D. The formula with the lowest MedAE (Hill-RBF v2.0) yielded a prediction error within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D in 43.1%, 70.6%, and 94.1% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent formulas such as Barrett Universal II, Kane, and Hill-RBF v2.0 and Wang-Koch adjusted formulas perform well in this subset of patients with high myopia. The Hill-RBF v2.0 formula had the lowest MedAE and highest proportion of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 D of the predicted target. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(3):207-211.].

Time Utilization and Refractive Prediction Enhancement Associated with Intraoperative Aberrometry Use During Cataract Surgery

Purpose

To evaluate the time cost of intraoperative aberrometry (IA), to compare IA prediction error to the prediction error associated with conventional formulas using preoperative calculations (PC) and evaluate when IA provides clinically relevant benefit.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of eyes that underwent cataract phacoemulsification surgery with IA at an academic eye center. IA versus PC prediction error were compared amongst various preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. Additionally, a dichotomous variable indicating clinically relevant benefit of IA, where IA absolute prediction error was less than 0.5D and PC absolute prediction error greater than 0.5D, was associated with clinical factors.

Results

Five hundred eyes of 341 patients were included in the analysis. The quantitative difference between mean absolute prediction errors for IA versus PC was between 0.0D and 0.03D in most subgroups. For the 11.0% of eyes that had clinically relevant benefit to IA, the multivariable model identified the following strongest predictors: prior myopic corneal refractive surgery (Odds ratio (OR) 3.9, p<0.01 for myopic LASIK/PRK, OR 5.5, p=0.01 for radial keratotomy), toric or multifocal/EDOF lens implantation (OR 2.7, p=0.03 for toric monofocal lenses, OR 3.1, p=0.01 for EDOF/multifocal lenses), and short and long axial lengths (p<0.01). On average, IA implementation added 3.0 minutes to surgery (p<0.01).

Conclusion

For greatest likelihood of a clinically meaningful improvement in outcomes despite increased surgical time, surgeons and patients should consider using IA for eyes with extremes in axial length, eyes with prior myopic corneal refractive surgery, or when implanting lenses with toric or extended-depth-of-focus/multifocal properties.

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas for eyes with insufficient capsular support

Background

There is no consensus on which intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula provides the best refractive prediction in patients with inadequate capsular support whose anterior ocular anatomic structure differs from that of normal subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy and performance of IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II) in predicting postoperative refractive prediction error (PE) for this subgroup of patients.

Methods

A total of 110 eyes from 110 patients with insufficient capsular support who underwent scleral fixation of an IOL at the Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center from July 1, 2016 to November 30, 2019 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Preoperative optical biometrics were measured with the IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The performance of each formula in predicting PE was compared, and the effect of keratometry and axial length (AL) on PE was evaluated for each formula using univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis.

Results

The mean age of the included participants was 12.54±9.66 years. The Sanders, Retzlaff, and Manus/theoretical (SRK/T) (-0.25 D) and Holladay 1 (-0.28 D) formulas tended to have minimal postoperative PE compared to the Hoffer Q (-0.62 D), Haigis (-0.67 D), and Barrett Universal II (-0.62 D) formulas (P=0.005). All formulas individually resulted in <70% of eyes within ±1.00 D of the PE. Nevertheless, after constants were optimized, these formulas led to 7.3% to 13.6% of increase within ±1.00 D of the PE. Keratometry and AL were significantly associated with PE for each formula, but the relationship was weakest for SRK/T.

Conclusions

In eyes with insufficient capsular support, postoperative PE was minimal for the SRK/T formula, which suggested SRK/T to be the best choice, especially when the keratometry and AL of patients are extremely large or small.

Five Pearls for Long Eyes

Collapse

[Artificial intelligence in ophthalmology : Guidelines for physicians for the critical evaluation of studies]

BACKGROUND

Empirical models have been an integral part of everyday clinical practice in ophthalmology since the introduction of the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff (SRK) formula. Recent developments in the field of statistical learning (artificial intelligence, AI) now enable an empirical approach to a wide range of ophthalmological questions with an unprecedented precision.

OBJECTIVE

Which criteria must be considered for the evaluation of AI-related studies in ophthalmology?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Exemplary prediction of visual acuity (continuous outcome) and classification of healthy and diseased eyes (discrete outcome) using retrospectively compiled optical coherence tomography data (50 eyes of 50 patients, 50 healthy eyes of 50 subjects). The data were analyzed with nested cross-validation (for learning algorithm selection and hyperparameter optimization).

RESULTS

Based on nested cross-validation for training, visual acuity could be predicted in the separate test data-set with a mean absolute error (MAE, 95% confidence interval, CI of 0.142 LogMAR [0.077; 0.207]). Healthy versus diseased eyes could be classified in the test data-set with an agreement of 0.92 (Cohen's kappa). The exemplary incorrect learning algorithm and variable selection resulted in an MAE for visual acuity prediction of 0.229 LogMAR [0.150; 0.309] for the test data-set. The drastic overfitting became obvious on comparison of the MAE with the null model MAE (0.235 LogMAR [0.148; 0.322]).

CONCLUSION

Selection of an unsuitable measure of the goodness-of-fit, inadequate validation, or withholding of a null or reference model can obscure the actual goodness-of-fit of AI models. The illustrated pitfalls can help clinicians to identify such shortcomings.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with axial myopia

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with axial lengths (ALs) longer than 26.0 mm.

SETTING

Department of Cataract Surgery, Shanxi Eye Hospital, China.

DESIGN

Prospective case series.

METHODS

This study evaluated (1) two new formulas (Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF 2.0), (2) three vergence formulas (Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T), and (3) the original and modified Wang-Koch AL adjustment formulas with Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The User Group for Laser Interference Biometry lens constants were used for IOL power calculation. The refractive prediction error was calculated by subtracting the predicted refraction from the actual refraction postoperatively. The mean numerical error (MNE), percentage of eyes with hyperopic outcomes, and mean absolute error (MAE) were determined.

RESULTS

The study comprised 136 eyes. The Barrett and Hill-RBF formulas had MNEs close to zero (-0.09 D to 0.03 D), the Haigis, Holladay 1, and SRK/T produced hyperopic MNEs (0.25 to 0.70 D), and the original and modified Wang-Koch AL adjustment formulas induced myopic MNEs (-0.48 to -0.22 D). The original Wang-Koch formulas produced significantly lower percentages of eyes with hyperopic outcomes (15% to 18%) than all other formulas (28% to 91%). There were no significant differences in MAEs between the Barrett, Hill-RBF, Haigis, and original and modified Wang-Koch adjustment with the Holladay 1 (0.32 to 0.41 D).

CONCLUSION

The performances of the Barrett and Hill-RBF were comparable in long eyes. The incidence of hyperopic outcome with the Wang-Koch AL adjustment formula was significantly lower than other formulas.

Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry: A Review

The refractive outcome of cataract surgery is influenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devices used to measure the eye (including intraoperative aberrometry [IA]). This review aimed to cover the breadth of literature over the previous 10 years, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is the most accurate? (2) What biometry devices are available, do the measurements they obtain differ from one another, and will this cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection? and (3) Does IA improve refractive outcomes? A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database for articles on each of these topics that identified 1313 articles, of which 166 were included in the review. For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accurate formula over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum and in both the short eye (AL, ≤22.0 mm) and long eye (AL, ≥26.0 mm) subgroups. Other formulas that performed well in the short-eye subgroup were the Olsen (4-factor), Haigis, and Hill-radial basis function (RBF) 1.0. In the long-eye group, the other formulas that performed well included the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen (4-factor), or Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment. All biometry devices delivered highly reproducible measurements, and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric variables between devices. The differences seen resulted in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection. The main difference found between devices was the ability to measure successfully through dense cataracts, with swept-source OCT-based machines performing better than partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry devices. Intraoperative aberrometry generally improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surgery when the BUII and Hill-RBF, Barrett toric calculator, or Barrett True-K formulas were not used. When they were used, IA did not result in better outcomes.

Clinical outcomes after aphakic versus aphakic/pseudophakic intraoperative aberrometry in cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation

PURPOSE

To determine if there was a clinically significant difference in clinical outcomes after toric IOL implantation based on intraoperative aberrometry (IA), where eyes were measured either in the aphakic state only or both the aphakic and pseudophakic states.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, contralateral eye study was performed at one site in Poughkeepsie, NY, USA. Subjects included patients presenting for uncomplicated bilateral cataract surgery eligible for toric lens implantation with regular corneal astigmatism in both eyes whose toric IOL implantation was based on IA. One eye was measured when aphakic and the other when both aphakic and pseudophakic. The primary outcome measure was the magnitude of residual refractive astigmatism. Secondary measures included the percentage of eyes with 0.50D or less of residual refractive astigmatism, the spherical equivalent refraction and the time for IA measurement.

RESULTS

Mean residual refractive astigmatism was not statistically significantly different between groups (0.32D ± 0.46D IA_1 vs. 0.23D ± 0.35D IA_2, p = 0.25), nor was the percentage of eyes with a residual refractive cylinder of 0.50D or less (94% in both groups, p = 1.0). The average time to measure the pseudophakic eye was 3 min, 46 s. Aphakic IA measurements appeared to produce better spherical equivalent refractive results relative to preoperative calculations.

CONCLUSION

Pseudophakic IA measurements took nearly 4 min per case. Residual refractive astigmatism was not appreciably lower when pseudophakic IA measurements were made after aphakic IA measurements, which suggests aphakic IA measurements alone provide good clinical results with toric IOLs.

Accuracy of the Hill-radial basis function method and the Barrett Universal II formula

PURPOSE

The aim was to assess the postoperative results of a biometric method using artificial intelligence (Hill-radial basis function 2.0), and data from a modern formula (Barrett Universal II) and the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula.

METHODS

Phacoemulsification and biconvex intraocular lens implantation were performed in 186 cataractous eyes. The diopters of intraocular lens were established with the Hill-radial basis function method, based on biometric data obtained using the Aladdin device. The required diopters of the intraocular lens were also calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula and with the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The differences between the manifest postoperative refractive errors and the planned refractive errors were calculated, as well as the percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D of the prediction error. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were also determined.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 70.13 years (SD = 10.67 years), and the mean axial length was 23.47 mm (range = 20.72-28.78 mm). The percentage of eyes within a prediction error of ±0.5 D was 83.62% using the Hill-radial basis function method, 79.66% with the Barrett Universal II formula, and 74.01% in the case of the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraft/Theoretical formula. The mean- and the median absolute refractive errors were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Clinical success was the highest when using the biometric method, based on pattern recognition. The results obtained using Barrett Universal II came a close second. Both methods performed better compared to a traditionally used formula.

Comparison of six methods for the intraocular lens power calculation in high myopic eyes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of Barrett Universal II and Hill-Radial Basis Function with other four popular formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power in high myopic eyes.

METHODS

A total of 56 eyes with an axial length of more than 26.0 mm were retrospectively reviewed. Six intraocular lens power calculation methods, including Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function, SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay 2 and Holladay 1, were evaluated. The difference between the postoperative actual refraction and the refraction predicted by the six methods was evaluated as the prediction error. The absolute prediction error was also calculated.

RESULTS

The mean numerical prediction error ± standard deviation of the six intraocular lens power calculation methods, in order of lowest to highest, was Barrett Universal II (0.37 ± 0.54 D), Hill-Radial Basis Function (0.40 ± 0.56 D), SRK/T (0.44 ± 0.56 D), Haigis (0.53 ± 0.54 D), Holladay 2 (0.88 ± 0.62 D) and Holladay 1 (1.00 ± 0.60 D). The median absolute errors predicted by the Barrett (0.46 D), Hill-Radial Basis Function (0.47 D), SRK/T (0.53 D) and Haigis (0.58 D) were significantly lower than those of the Holladay 1 (0.90 D) and Holladay 2(1.10 D; all p < 0.001). There was no significant difference among the median absolute errors of Barrett, Hill-Radial Basis Function, SRK/T and Haigis (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The prediction errors differed for each method in the selection of intraocular lens power for the long eyes. In terms of overall accuracy, the Barrett Universal II formula provided the lowest prediction error. The Hill-Radial Basis Function method was comparable to the theoretical formulas, such as SRK/T and Haigis.

Accuracy and Precision of Intraocular Lens Calculations Using the New Hill-RBF Version 2.0 in Eyes With High Axial Myopia

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy and precision of the new Hill-RBF version 2.0 (Hill-RBF 2) formula with other formulas (Barrett Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T) in predicting residual refractive error after phacoemulsification in high axial myopic eyes.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

127 eyes of 127 patients with axial length (AL) ≥26 mm were included. The refractive prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between the postoperative refraction and the refraction predicted by each formula for the intraocular lens (IOL) power actually implanted. Standard deviation (SD) of PE, median absolute PE (MedAE), proportion of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, and ±1.00 diopter (D) of PE were compared. A generalized linear model was used to model the mean function and variance function of the PE (indicative of the accuracy and precision) with respect to biometric variables.

RESULTS

The MedAE and SD of Hill-RBF 2 were lower than that of Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T (P ≤ .036) and were comparable to Barrett Universal II and Haigis (P ≥ .077). Hill-RBF 2 had more eyes within ±0.25 D of the intended refraction (76 out of 127 eyes [59.84%]) compared to other formulas (P ≤ .034) except Barrett Universal II (P = .472). AL was associated with the mean function or variance function of the PE for all formulas except Hill-RBF 2.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the precision of Hill-RBF 2 is comparable to Barret Universal II and Haigis. Unlike the other 5 formulas, its dispersion and the accuracy of the refractive prediction is independent of the AL.

Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry

Purpose: To assess the value of intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in determining toric intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with no previous ocular surgery.

Patients and methods: This was a retrospective data review at one US clinical site of eyes that underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation where standard preoperative and IA measurements were available. Calculated IOL sphere and cylinder powers and orientation were compared based on the measurement method and the postoperative refraction, using both actual and simulated (back-calculated) results. Comparisons were between the surgeon’s preoperative calculations, IA measurements, the actual IOL implanted and results from the Barrett toric calculator.

Results: There was no significant difference (p>0.7) in the number of eyes expected to have, or having, a spherical equivalent refraction within 0.50D of the target between Actual (92%), IA (93%) or Preoperative calculation results (86%). The percentage of eyes with expected residual refractive astigmatism ≤0.50D was significantly higher for the IA vs Preoperative calculations (75% vs 53%, p<0.01). There was no significant difference in expected results between the Actual, IA and Barrett toric calculations (p>0.65).

Conclusion: Modern IOL calculations for sphere produced results comparable to those achieved with IA. The value of IA in determining IOL cylinder power and orientation was more evident when comparing expected results between IA and a preoperative method based on measured total corneal astigmatism than when comparing to expected results from the Barrett toric calculator.

Biometry in cataract surgery: a review of the current literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the literature in 2017 and 2018 pertaining to biometry for cataract surgery and report pertinent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

New devices using swept-source ocular coherence tomography can measure axial length in dense cataracts more frequently than common biometers. Computer-assisted registration may be superior to intraoperative aberrometry for toric intraocular lens (IOL) placement. Soft contact lenses may not require removal as long before biometry as previously thought. The Barrett Universal II IOL formula has been found to perform well at all axial lengths.

SUMMARY

New swept-source ocular coherence tomography biometers are more frequently successful at measuring axial length in dense cataracts which promises to improve refractive outcomes. Accuracy in toric IOL placement is likely to increase with improved devices. It may not be necessary to have patients remove soft contact lens any more than 2 days prior to biometry. The Barrett Universal II IOL formula may be used confidently for most eyes. Advancements acknowledged, purchasing new equipment will not be necessary for all surgeons.

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle

Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is always a challenge in ophthalmology, and unoptimized process may lead to inaccurate refractive outcomes. Quality control circle (QCC) has shown its success in many fields as a process management tool. However, its efficacy in ophthalmology remains unclear. Here we utilized the QCC method to optimize the process and evaluate its efficacy in improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation. After the QCC application, the percentage of eyes with achieved refractive outcomes within 0.5 diopter significantly increased from 63.2% to 80.8% calculated by Haigis formula and 59.2% to 75.8% by SRK/T formula in patients with normal axial length (AL) (22 mm ≤ AL < 26 mm). Although there were no statistically significant differences in patients with long AL by the two formulas (p = 0.886 and 0.726), we achieved an accuracy of 75% with the application of the PhacoOptics software, which was significantly higher than that using the other two formulas (p < 0.001). Our findings indicated that QCC optimized and standardized the process of IOL power calculation, thus improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery.