IOL power calculation after refractive surgery

Accuracy of Constant C for Ray Tracing: Assisted Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Normal Ocular Axial Eyes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of constant C for ray tracing-assisted intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in patients with different refractive power, we compared the refractive outcome of the ray tracing method based on constant C and conventional IOL calculation.

METHODS

215 eyes which underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation were enrolled in the study. According to the average corneal power, patients were divided into 3 groups: high corneal power (K >45 D) group, medium corneal power (43 ≤ K ≤ 45 D) group, and low corneal power (K <43 D) group. The predicted sphero-equivalent refractive outcome for the IOL power implanted at surgery was calculated using the ray tracing method, SRK/T, and Haigis formulas.

RESULTS

On the basis of the corneal refractive power, there were 65 eyes of K >45 D (30.23%), 96 eyes of 43 ≤ K ≤ 45 D (44.65%), and 54 eyes of K <43 D (25.12%). In general, the ray tracing group had the smallest value of mean absolute error (MAE) and mean error, and the proportions of eyes with absolute error (AE) <0.50 and <0.75 D were significantly higher than those of the other 2 formulas (p = 0.010). In each group, the value of MAE was smallest in the ray tracing group; for the proportions of AEs <0.50 and <0.75 D, the values in the ray tracing group were higher than those in the SRK/T and Haigis groups. Especially in the high and low corneal refractive groups, the proportion of AE <0.25 D was also obviously higher, but only in the low corneal refractive power group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the conventional formulas, C constant of the ray tracing-assisted IOL power calculation has more accuracy for the patients with different corneal refractive powers. Ray tracing could provide better guidance for IOL selection clinically.

Accuracy of Different Topographic Instruments in Calculating Corneal Power after Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy

PURPOSE

To compare the corneal power measurements obtained using different topographic instruments after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

Patients with myopia who were candidates for corneal refractive surgery were sequentially included. Pre-PRK and six months post-PRK corneal powers were measured using Javal manual keratometer, Orbscan II, Galilei, Tomey TMS4, and EyeSys 2000 topographers. Measured values were compared with those obtained using the clinical history method (CHM).

RESULTS

This study included 66 eyes of 33 patients. The lowest keratometric measurements were obtained using the Galilei topographer (42.98 ± 1.69 diopters, D) and the highest measurements were obtained using the Javal manual keratometer (43.96 ± 1.54 D) preoperatively. The same order was observed postoperatively. Effective refractive power (EffRP) measured using EyeSys was most similar to the values obtained using CHM (ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.951), followed by the total corneal power measured using the Galilei system (ICC = 0.943). The values obtained using the adjusted EffRP formula (EffRP - 0.015*Δ Refraction - 0.05) were more consistent with the values obtained using CHM (ICC = 0.954) compared to those obtained with the adjusted average central corneal power formula measured using the Tomey system (ICC = 0.919).

CONCLUSION

Post-PRK corneal powers measured using the adjusted EffRP formula were the most similar to values obtained using CHM.

Demographics of patients having cataract surgery after laser in situ keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess the demographics of patients having cataract surgery in eyes with previous laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, and Sanno Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

This study evaluated eyes of consecutive patients scheduled for cataract surgery after previous LASIK (Group 1). The control groups comprised eyes with axial lengths (ALs) matched with ALS in Group 1 (Group 2) and all eyes scheduled for cataract surgery (Group 3). Assessed were age, sex, corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, keratometry (K) readings, corneal astigmatism, and corneal higher-order aberrations (HOAs).

RESULTS

Group 1 comprised 40 eyes of 40 patients; Group 2, 606 eyes of 606 patients; and Group 3, 3642 eyes of 3642 patients. The mean age at cataract surgery of patients in Group 1 was 54.6 years ± 8.1 (SD), which was significantly younger than in Group 2 (by approximately 10 years) and Group 3 (by approximately 15 years) (P < .001, Student t test). In Group 1, 70.0% of patients were men, a significantly higher percentage than in Groups 2 and 3 (P < .05, Fisher exact test). The rate of corneal HOAs was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Groups 2 and 3 (P < .05, Student t test). There were no significant differences in other demographics except in K readings.

CONCLUSION

A long AL and an increase in corneal HOAs might contribute to a tendency for cataract surgery to be performed earlier in eyes in which LASIK has been performed.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

IOL power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To describe the different formulas that try to overcome the problem of calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients that underwent corneal refractive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

A Pubmed literature search review of all published articles, on keyword associated with IOL power calculation and corneal refractive surgery, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 33 peer reviewed articles dealing with methods that try to overcome the problem of calculating the IOL power in patients that underwent CRS were found. According to the information needed to try to overcome this problem, the methods were divided in two main categories: 18 methods were based on the knowledge of the patient clinical history and 15 methods that do not require such knowledge. The first group was further divided into five subgroups based on the parameters needed to make such calculation.

CONCLUSION

In the light of our findings, to avoid postoperative nasty surprises, we suggest using only those methods that have shown good results in a large number of patients, possibly by averaging the results obtained with these methods.