Corneal power after refractive surgery for myopia: contact lens method

Comparing Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry Before and After Myopic Corneal Refractive Surgery With a Swept-Source OCT Biometer

Background

More recently, the swept-source OCT biometer-IOLMaster 700 has provided direct total corneal power measurement, named total keratometry. This study aims to evaluate whether standard keratometry (SK) and total keratometry (TK) with IOLMaster 700 can accurately reflect the corneal power changes induced by myopic corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

In this study, the biometric data measured with the swept-source OCT biometer—IOLMaster 700 before and 3 months after the myopic corneal refractive surgery were recorded. The changes of biological parameters, including SK, posterior keratometry (PK), and TK, and the difference between SK and TK were compared. In addition, the changes of SK and TK induced by the surgery were compared with the changes of spherical equivalent at the corneal plane (ΔSEco).

Results

A total of 74 eyes (74 patients) were included. The changes of SK, PK, TK, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness after refractive surgery were all statistically significant (all p < 0.01), while the change of white-to-white was not (p = 0.075). The difference between SK and TK was −0.03 ± 0.10D before the corneal refractive surgery and increased to −0.78 ± 0.26D after surgery. The changes of SK and the changes of TK induced by the surgery had a good correlation with the changes of SEco (r = 0.97). ΔSK was significantly smaller than ΔSEco, with a difference of −0.65 ± 0.54D (p < 0.01). However, the difference between ΔTK and ΔSEco (0.10 ± 0.50D) was not statistically significant (p = 0.08).

Conclusions

Using SK to reflect the changes induced by the myopic corneal refractive surgery may lead to underestimation, while TK could generate a more accurate result. The new parameter, TK, provided by the IOLMaster 700, appeared to provide an accurate, objective measure of corneal power that closely tracked the refractive change in corneal refractive surgery.

Predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism for toric intraocular lens calculations

PURPOSE

To evaluate the astigmatic correction obtained with a toric intraocular lens using the keratometric readings (Ks) from a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer and the Barrett toric formula with its predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) value and to compare the results with those expected by using the OCT Ks and a measured PCA from a scheimpflug topographer and by using the SimKs and the measured PCA from the Scheimpflug topographer.

SETTING

Private practice, Lynwood, California.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

METHODS

All measurements were performed by the SS-OCT biometer and the Scheimpflug topographer and using the Barrett toric formula.

RESULTS

We evaluated 122 eyes of 122 patients. The mean absolute errors in predicted residual astigmatism for the entire series were 0.41 ± 0.19 diopters (D) (0.00 to 0.85 D) using the OCT Ks and predicted PCA, 0.45 ± 0.25 D (0.00 to 1.01 D) using the OCT Ks and measured PCA, and 0.49 ± 0.25 D (0.00 to 1.30 D) using the SimKs and measured PCA. The statistically significant differences between the errors had a P value of .062 for the entire series (n = 122), .26 for the subgroup with against-the-rule astigmatism (n = 68), .47 for the subgroup with oblique astigmatism (n = 11), and .05 for the subgroup with with-the-rule astigmatism (n = 43). The percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D were 74% (n = 90), 71% (n = 87) and 64% (n = 78) (P = .13) and within ±0.75 D were 99% (n = 121), 95% (n = 116) and 84% (n = 102) (P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett toric formula and its predicted PCA performed better with the OCT K readings than with the topographer SimKs and a measured PCA.

Corneal power measurements by ray tracing in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction for myopia with a combined Scheimpflug Camera-Placido disk topographer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of the measurements of corneal power obtained by ray tracing with a combined Scheimpflug camera-Placido disk corneal topographer (Sirius) in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction for myopia (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective cases study includes 50 eyes of 50 patients who underwent myopic SMILE. Mean value of simulated keratometry (K_post), mean pupil power (MPP) (ray tracing, diameter of the entrance pupil range 3-6 mm), anterior and posterior corneal radius, and corneal thickness were obtained with Sirius topographer preoperatively and three months postoperatively, as well as cycloplegic refraction. True net power, equivalent keratometry readings, and Haigis equivalent power formula were calculated, and these measurements, MPP and K_post, were compared with the corneal power calculated with the clinical history method (CHM).

RESULTS

Corneal power measurements obtained with all methods were significantly different from CHM (P < 0.001), except the value of MPP obtained at 5.5 mm (P = 0.927). A good direct correlation was found between CHM and all measurements. The distribution of differences as compared with the CHM showed that the lowest difference corresponded to the value of MMP at 5.5 mm (- 0.002 ± 0.6). The Bland-Altman plots for the MPP at 5.5 mm showed 95% limits of agreement between - 1.1787 D and 1.1741 D.

CONCLUSIONS

MPP obtained by ray tracing within a diameter of entrance pupil of 5.5 mm could predict corrected corneal power derived from the CHM in eyes following SMILE surgery.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Without Corneal Parameters: A New Option

OBJECTIVES

To compare different methods in calculating the corneal radius (R) to be used in case of intraocular lens power calculations when it is immeasurable.

METHODS

The right eyes of 1,960 patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups. The first group of right eyes (group A) was divided in three groups according to the axial length (AL) (≤21.99 mm, between 22 and 24.99 mm, and ≥25 mm). In these groups, the correlation between the AL and the corneal radius (R) provided three different regression formulas. The second group of right eyes (group B) was used to test the following methods of estimating the R: the regression formulas determined from group A, formula from Logan et al., formula from Stenström, the mean R calculated from group A, and the fellow eye group B. A Student paired T test was used for the statistical evaluation.

RESULTS

In case of AL≤21.99, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=0.00±0.09 mm, P=0.94, mean=0.05±0.21 mm, P=0.05, mean=0.05±0.22 mm, P=0.08, respectively). In case of AL between 22 and 24.99 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.01±0.09 mm, P=0.38, mean=0.01±0.21 mm, P=0.12, mean=0.01±0.24 mm, P=0.18, respectively). In case of AL≥25 mm, the best results have been obtained with the fellow eye R, followed by either the regression formula or the mean R from group A (mean=-0.003±0.08 mm, P=0.94 mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, mean=-0.004±0.25 mm, P=0.85, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The new calculated regression formulas seem to represent a reliable method to calculate the R when it is undetectable, as in case of corneal dystrophies.

Comprehensive evaluation of total corneal refractive power by ray tracing in predicting corneal power in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

To assess the prediction accuracy of four variations of total corneal refractive power (TCRP) by the ray tracing method in determining corneal power in eyes after myopic small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

METHODS

Forty eyes of forty patients who had undergone myopic SMILE were enrolled in this prospective study. Manifest refraction and Pentacam HR were performed preoperatively and three months or more postoperatively. Mean keratometry (Km), true net power (TNP), equivalent keratometry readings (EKR) and 4 subtypes of TCRP (pupil centered or apex centered within a ring or a zone)-TCRPpupil,ring, TCRPpupil,zone, TCRPapex,ring and TCRPapex,zone-were recorded and compared to the theoretical postoperative keratometry value using the clinical history method (CHM).

RESULTS

The only keratometric values that showed no statistically significant differences from the CHM were 4.0 mm and 4.5 mm EKR, 6.0 mm TCRPpupil,zone and TCRPapex,zone. Pearson's correlation test revealed that 4.0 mm TCRPpupil,zone exhibited the highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.974) followed by TCRPapex,zone 4.0 mm (0.972) and EKR 4.5 mm (0.970). The 95% limits of agreement (LOA) of the 4.0 mm EKR and CHM, the 4.5 mm EKR and CHM, the 6.0 mm TCRPpupil,zone and CHM, the 6.0 mm TCRPapex,zone and CHM were (-1.27 to 1.22 D), (-1.04 to 0.98 D), (-1.39 to 1.08 D) and (-1.38 to 0.96 D), respectively, while the modified 4.0 mm TCRPpupil,zone (TCRPpuil,zone + 0.70 D) and TCRPapex,zone (TCRPapex,zone+0.70 D) yielded the narrowest 95% LOA of (-0.96 to 0.95 D) and (-0.96D, 1.05 D).

CONCLUSIONS

Total corneal refractive power using the ray tracing method could predict corrected corneal power derived from the CHM in eyes following SMILE surgery after simple modification.

Corneal power measurement with a new aberrometer/corneal topographer in eyes after small incision lenticule extraction for myopia

PURPOSE

To assess corneal power measurements obtained by the OPD SCAN III Topographer in eyes with prior myopic small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery.

METHODS

Sixty untreated myopic eyes of sixty subjects and forty previous myopic SMILE surgery eyes of forty subjects were consecutively enrolled in the present study. Manifest refraction, OPD SCAN III and Pentacam HR were performed. Keratometric measurements assessed by OPD SCAN III-simulated keratometry, average pupil power and effective central corneal power (ECCP) were compared with mean keratometry (Km) obtained by Pentacam HR in the untreated group and the clinical history method (CHM) in the treated group.

RESULTS

In the untreated group, no statistically significant differences were revealed between all corneal power measurements obtained with OPD SCAN III and Km. In the treated group, all the corneal power measurements were statistically different from the CHM except for the Haigis method and the Shammas method, while ECCP had a statistically but not clinically significant overestimation of 0.42 D with 95% limit of agreement (LOA) of - 0.81 D to 1.64 D. The three modified ECCP had better prediction performance with narrower 95% of LOA lying in (- 1.20, 1.20 D) (- 1.22, 1.23 D) and (- 0.90, 1.00 D), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ECCP provided with OPD SCAN III could be used as an alternative option for the CHM after specific modifications in eyes with previous myopic SMILE surgery when the preoperative data are unavailable considering the narrowest agreement between the modified ECCP and the CHM. Otherwise, caution must be raised considering the wide LOA.

Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery

Background

This review aims to explain the reasons why intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is challenging in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery and what solutions are currently available to obtain more accurate results.

Review

After IOL implantation in eyes with previous LASIK, PRK or RK, a refractive surprise can occur because i) the altered ratio between the anterior and posterior corneal surface makes the keratometric index invalid; ii) the corneal curvature radius is measured out of the optical zone; and iii) the effective lens position is erroneously predicted if such a prediction is based on the post-refractive surgery corneal curvature. Different methods are currently available to obtain the best refractive outcomes in these eyes, even when the perioperative data (i.e. preoperative corneal power and surgically induced refractive change) are not known. In this review, we describe the most accurate methods based on our clinical studies.

Conclusions

IOL power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery can be calculated with a variety of methods that lead to relatively accurate outcomes, with 60 to 70% of eyes showing a prediction error within 0.50 diopters.

Evaluation of Equivalent Keratometry Readings Obtained by Pentacam HR (High Resolution)

Purpose

To assess the repeatability of Equivalent Keratometry Readings (EKRs) obtained by the Pentacam HR (high resolution) in untreated and post-LASIK eyes, and to compare them with the keratometry (K) values obtained by other algorithms.

Methods

In this prospective study, 100 untreated eyes and 71 post-LASIK eyes were included. In the untreated group, each eye received 3 consecutive scans using the Pentacam HR, and EKR values in all central corneal zone, the true net power (K_net) and the simulated K (SimK) were obtained for each scan. In the post-LASIK group, each eye received subjective refraction and 3 consecutive scans with the Pentacam HR preoperatively. During the 3-month post-surgery exam, the same examinations and the use of an IOLMaster were conducted for each eye. The EKRs in all zone, the K_net, the mean K (K_m) by IOLMaster and the K values by clinical history method (K_CHM) were obtained. The repeatability of the EKRs was assessed by the within-subject standard deviation (S_w), 2.77S_w, coefficient of variation (CV_w) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons were performed to analyze the differences among the EKRs and K values calculated by other algorithms within the 2 groups. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated.

Results

The EKR values in all central corneal zone were repeatable in both the untreated group (S_w≦0.19 D, 2.77S_w≦0.52 D, CV_w≦1%, ICC≧0.978) and the post-LASIK group (S_w≦0.22 D, 2.77S_w≦0.62 D, CV_w≦1%, ICC≧0.980). In the untreated group, the EKR in 4mm zone was close to SimK (P = 1.000), and the 95% LoA was (-0.13 to 0.15 D). The difference between K_net and SimK was -1.30±0.13 D (95% LoA -1.55 to -1.55 D, P<0.001). In the post-LASIK group, all the EKRs were significantly higher than K_CHM (all P<0.001). The differences between the EKR in 4mm zone and K_CHM, the EKR in 7mm zone and K_CHM, K_net and K_CHM, K_m and K_CHM, SimK and K_net were 0.64±0.50 D (95% LoA, -0.33 to 1.62 D), 1.77±0.88 D (95% LoA, 0.04 to 3.51 D), -0.98±0.48 D (95% LoA, -1.92 to -0.04 D), 0.64±0.53 D (95% LoA, -0.40 to 1.68 D), and 1.73±0.20 D (95% LoA, 1.33 to 2.13 D), respectively.

Conclusions

The EKRs obtained by the Pentacam HR were repeatable in both untreated eyes and post-LASIK eyes. Compared to the total corneal power obtained by the clinical history method, the EKR values generally overestimated the total corneal power in post-LASIK eyes. So, further calibrations for the EKR values should be conducted, before they were used for the total corneal power assessment in post-LASIK eyes.

Precision (Repeatability and Reproducibility) and Agreement of Corneal Power Measurements Obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace

Purpose

To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, and assess the agreement with measurements obtained by Allegro Topolyzer and IOLMaster.

Methods

The right eyes of 100 normal subjects were prospectively scanned 3 times using all the 4 devices. Another observer performed additional 3 consecutive scans using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace in the same session. About one week later, the first observer repeated the measurements using the Topcon KR-1W and iTrace. The steep keratometry (Ks), flat keratometry (Kf), mean keratometry (Km), J0 and J45 were analyzed. Repeatability and reproducibility of measurements were evaluated by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), coefficient of variation (CoV), test-retest repeatability (2.77Sw), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreements between devices were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Results

Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of the Ks, Kf and Km showed a CoV of no more than 0.5%, a 2.77Sw of 0.70 D or less, and an ICC of no less than 0.99. However, J0 and J45 showed poor intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility (all ICCs not greater than 0.446). Statistically significant differences existed between Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace, Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster for Ks, Kf and Km measurements (all P < 0.05). The mean differences between Topcon KR-1W, iTrace, and the other 2 devices were small. The 95% LoA were approximately 1.0 D to 1.5 D for all measurements.

Conclusions

The Ks, Kf and Km obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace showed excellent intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility in normal eyes. The agreement between Topcon KR-1W and Topolyzer, Topcon KR-1W and IOLMaster, iTrace and Topolyzer, iTrace and IOLMaster, Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were not so good, they should not be interchangeable in clinical application. Given that the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver and intersession reproducibility of corneal astigmatism measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were poor, it should be cautious that Topcon KR-1W and iTrace were applied for the preparation of toric lens implantation.

Estimation of intraocular lens power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery: using corneal height in anterior segment optical coherence tomography

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of estimating effective lens position (ELP) and calculating intraocular lens power using corneal height (CH), as measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), in patients who have undergone corneal refractive surgery.

METHODS

This study included 23 patients (30 eyes) who have undergone myopic corneal refractive surgery and subsequent successful cataract surgery. The CH was measured with AS-OCT, and the measured ELP (ELPm) was calculated. Intraocular lens power, which could achieve actual emmetropia (Preal), was determined with medical records. Estimated ELP (ELPest) was back-calculated using Preal, axial length, and keratometric value through the SRK/T formula. After searching the best-fit regression formula between ELPm and ELPest, converted ELP and intraocular lens power (ELPconv, Pconv) were obtained and then compared to ELPest and Preal, respectively. The proportion of eyes within a defined error was investigated.

RESULTS

Mean CH, ELPest, and ELPm were 3.71 ± 0.23, 7.74 ± 1.09, 5.78 ± 0.26 mm, respectively. The ELPm and ELPest were linearly correlated (ELPest = 1.841 × ELPm - 2.018, p = 0.023, R = 0.410) and ELPconv and Pconv agreed well with ELPest and Preal, respectively. Eyes within ±0.5, ±1.0, ±1.5, and ±2.0 diopters of the calculated Pconv, were 23.3%, 66.6%, 83.3%, and 100.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraocular lens power calculation using CH measured with AS-OCT shows comparable accuracy to several conventional methods in eyes following corneal refractive surgery.

Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the keratometric (K) readings from the Pentacam-HR (High Resolution) unit with the automated K values from the IOLMaster keratometer (KIOLM), and to evaluate them in the commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for routine cataract surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative observational study.

METHODS

setting: Private practice, Lynwood, California. study population: Fifty cataractous eyes scheduled for surgery between July and August 2012. observation procedure: The K readings from the Pentacam-HR unit taken at the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-mm zones and the 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-mm rings, respectively, from 3 different maps: sagittal corneal front (KF), true net power (KTNP), and total refractive power (KRP) are compared with KIOLM. IOL power calculations were performed with each of the 25 sets of K readings. main outcome measures: The IOL prediction median absolute error (MedAE) obtained with each measurement.

RESULTS

KF averaged 0.03-0.13 diopter (D) higher than KIOLM (P > .05), KTNP averaged 1.16-1.21 D lower than KIOLM (P > .001), and KRP averaged 0.23-0.72 D lower than KIOLM (P > .001), with large variations in the measurements. The MedAE obtained with the different Pentacam K readings ranged from 0.44-0.64 D vs 0.52 D obtained with KIOLM (P > .05). MedAE was lower in all categories when the pupil was 3 mm or smaller.

CONCLUSION

The Pentacam KF values were the closest to KIOLM and the KF readings from the 2-mm ring yielded the best results for IOL power calculation.

Updated practical intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since its introduction in the 1980s, more than 40 million people worldwide have undergone some form of kerato-refractive surgery. Many of these individuals are now candidates for cataract surgery and pose the challenge of attaining first-rate refractive outcomes in nonvirgin eyes. Numerous approaches have been developed to estimate intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes postrefractive surgery. This review highlights the most practical, relevant options for accurate IOL power determination in these cases.

RECENT FINDINGS

With refined techniques and advances in instrumentation, more accurate assessments of true corneal power and thus, IOL power, are possible in postrefractive eyes. Optical coherence tomography and other corneal tomography instruments have markedly improved accuracy in this process. However, when expensive, modern equipments are not readily available, and online IOL calculators such as the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) calculator have become efficient, reliable options. Recent evidence confirms the accuracy of these online calculators.

SUMMARY

Emerging literature supports the use of methods that do not rely on prior refractive data in IOL power determination. Online IOL calculators provide user-friendly, efficient options that greatly facilitate accurate IOL power determination for cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone prior kerato-refractive surgery.

Defocus correction in the optical system of the eye: unconventional degrees of freedom

Despite the interest in developing improved formulas for intraocular lens power calculation, there are several sources of uncertainty that may well give rise to a significant residual refractive error. Those concerning the estimation of the corneal power are reviewed. In addition, we explore the possibility of introducing changes in some unconventional parameters of the eye to compensate for defocus and illustrate their effectiveness in two cases: a natural eye and an eye that has undergone previous surgical actions (anterior refractive surgery and cataract surgery with an intraocular lens implant). The results show that changes in the refractive index, thickness, or posterior radius of the cornea have relatively little effect on the overall refractive error. However, small changes in the refractive indexes of the aqueous or the vitreous humors are highly effective, much more so than a similar amount of change in the anterior curvature of the cornea. This fact opens new and attractive possibilities to compensate for refractive error through the introduction of changes in degrees of freedom so far considered unconventional.

Determining corneal power using Pentacam after myopic photorefractive keratectomy

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of Pentacam Scheimpflug camera for corneal power measurement in eyes with previous photorefractive keratectomy for myopia.

METHODS

In this comparative interventional case series, 35 eyes of 35 patients who had myopic photorefractive keratectomy were studied. Corneal power was measured by conventional topography and Pentacam Scheimpflug camera, and equivalent keratometry readings (EKR) in different central corneal rings (0.5 to 4.5 mm), true net power and simulated keratometry (K) measurements as well as those obtained using Shammas no-history, Koch-Maloney and Haigis methods were compared with clinical history method.

RESULTS

All corneal power measurements except for the topography simulated K and true net power values were statistically similar to the clinical history values. Simulated keratometry and 4.5-mm EKR values were more closely correlated with clinical history method. Shammas formula, Pentacam simulated K and 3-, 4- and 4.5-mm EKR provided a 95% confidence interval within +/-0.50 D of the mean clinical history method value, among these, the width of the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) was narrower for Shammas and Pentacam simulated K and 4.5-mm EKR values; however, considerably large 95% LoA were found between each of these values and those obtained with the clinical history method. Estimated preoperative keratometry was statistically similar to the preoperative measurement; however, estimated refractive change was different from actual value.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pentacam 4.5-mm EKR and simulated keratometry may be used as an alternative to clinical history method to predict corneal power when pre-keratorefractive surgery data are unavailable; however, wide LoA should be considered in the calculations.

Calculation of intraocular lens power using Orbscan II quantitative area topography after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To present the prospective application of the Orbscan II central 2-mm total-mean corneal power obtained by quantitative area topography in intraocular lens (IOL) calculation after refractive surgery.

METHODS

Calculated and achieved refraction and the difference between them were studied in 77 eyes of 61 patients with previous radial keratotomy (RK), RK and additional surgeries, myopic LASIK, myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), or hyperopic LASIK who underwent phacoemulsification without complications in 3 eye centers. All IOL calculations used the average from the central 2-mm Orbscan II total-mean power of maps centered on the pupil without the use of previous refractive data. Six IOL styles implanted within the bag were used.

RESULTS

Using the SRK-T formula, the overall calculated refraction was -0.64+/-0.93 diopters (D). The overall achieved spherical equivalent refraction (-0.52+/-0.79 D; range: -3.12 to 1.25 D; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.70/-0.34 D) was +/-0.50 D in 53% of eyes, +/-1.00 D in 78% of eyes, and +/-2.00 D in 99% of eyes. The overall difference between the calculated and achieved refraction (0.12+/-0.93 D, P=.27; range: -2.18 to 2.62 D; 95% CI: 0.09/0.33 D) was +/-0.50 D in 39% of eyes, +/-1.00 D in 77% of eyes, and +/-2.00 D in 96% of eyes. This difference was +/-1.00 D in 77% of eyes with RK (P=.70), 82% of eyes with myopic LASIK (P=.34), and 90% of eyes with myopic PRK (P=.96). In eyes with RK followed by LASIK, a trend toward undercorrection was noted (P=.03). In eyes with hyperopic LASIK, a trend toward overcorrection was noted (P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery, IOL power calculation can be performed with reasonable accuracy using the Orbscan II central 2-mm total-mean power. This method had better outcomes in eyes with previous RK, myopic LASIK, and myopic PRK than in eyes with hyperopic LASIK or RK with LASIK.

Practical method to calculate post-LASIK corneal power: the Actual K(a+p) method

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of a practical method (the Actual K(a+p) method) of corneal power measurement for post-LASIK eyes undergoing cataract surgery.

METHODS

Ten eyes of 7 patients (4 male, 3 female, average age 50.10±4.01 years, with -11.01±3.55D mean refraction before LASIK), underwent post-LASIK phaco+IOL cataract surgery. We used the posterior corneal curvature as measured by the Pentacam in a method we named Actual K(a+p) to calculate the post-LASIK corneal power for IOL calculation. The refractive outcomes after cataract surgery were evaluated. The Actual K(a+p) was compared with the back- calculated corneal power (BCK), which was thought to be the benchmark of true corneal power. The corneal power estimated by other published methods, including Maloney, Shammas, Koch-Maloney, Savini, and McCulley, together with the true net power and equivalent K reading (EKR) as found by the Pentacam were also compared with the BCK.

RESULTS

All eyes achieved satisfied refractive status after cataract surgery. The difference between the postoperative refraction and the target refraction was 0.04±0.40D, range from -0.63D and +0.85D. Among all the methods we studied, although the Bonferroni multiple comparison tests did not detect significant differences between any two of them, the Actual K(a+p) yielded the highest agreement with the BCK, with 80% of the eyes falling within ±0.5D and 100% within ±1.0D from the BCK values.

CONCLUSION

The Actual K(a+p) method can provide encour- aging results in post-LASIK eyes undergoing cataract surgery.

Theoretical evaluation of the cataract extraction-refraction-implantation techniques for intraocular lens power calculation

PURPOSE

To evaluate theoretically three previously published formulae that use intra-operative aphakic refractive error to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power, not necessitating pre-operative biometry. The formulae are as follows: IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 2.01 [Ianchulev et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.31 (2005) 1530]; IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 1.75 [Mackool et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.32 (2006) 435]; IOL power (D) = 0.07x(2) + 1.27x + 1.22, where x = aphakic refraction [Leccisotti, Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.246 (2008) 729].

METHODS

Gaussian first order calculations were used to determine the relationship between intra-operative aphakic refractive error and the IOL power required for emmetropia in a series of schematic eyes incorporating varying corneal powers, pre-operative crystalline lens powers, axial lengths and post-operative IOL positions. The three previously published formulae, based on empirical data, were then compared in terms of IOL power errors that arose in the same schematic eye variants.

RESULTS

An inverse relationship exists between theoretical ratio and axial length. Corneal power and initial lens power have little effect on calculated ratios, whilst final IOL position has a significant impact. None of the three empirically derived formulae are universally accurate but each is able to predict IOL power precisely in certain theoretical scenarios. The formulae derived by Ianchulev et al. and Leccisotti are most accurate for posterior IOL positions, whereas the Mackool et al. formula is most reliable when the IOL is located more anteriorly.

CONCLUSION

Final IOL position was found to be the chief determinant of IOL power errors. Although the A-constants of IOLs are known and may be accurate, a variety of factors can still influence the final IOL position and lead to undesirable refractive errors. Optimum results using these novel formulae would be achieved in myopic eyes.

Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review

This review describes the principles and practices involved in the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power. The theories behind formulas for calculating IOL power are described, using regression and optical methods employing 'thin lens' and 'thick lens' models, as well as exact ray-tracing methods. Numerical examples are included to illustrate the points made. The paper emphasizes the importance of establishing an accurate estimation of corneal power as well as an accurate technique for the measurement of axial length and accurate methods of predicting postoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD). It is concluded that current improvements in diagnostic and surgical technology, combined with the latest generation IOL power formulas, make the calculation and selection of appropriate IOL power among the most effective tools in refractive surgery today.

Calculating Intraocular Lens Geometry by Real Ray Tracing

PURPOSE

An implementation of real ray tracing based on Snell's law is tested by predicting the refraction of pseudophakic eyes and calculating the geometry of intraocular lenses (IOLs).

METHODS

The refraction of 30 pseudophakic eyes was predicted with the measured corneal topography, axial length, and the known IOL geometry and compared to the manifest refraction. Intraocular lens calculation was performed for 30 normal eyes and 12 eyes that had previous refractive surgery for myopia correction and compared to state-of-the-art IOL calculation formulae.

RESULTS

Mean difference between predicted and manifest refraction for a 2.5-mm pupil were sphere 0.11 +/- 0.43 diopters (D), cylinder -0.18 +/- 0.52 D, and axis 5.13 degrees +/- 30.19 degrees. Pearson's correlation coefficient was sphere r = 0.92, P < .01; cylinder r = 0.79, P < .01; and axis r = 0.91, P < .01. Intraocular lens calculation for the normal group showed that the mean absolute error regarding refractive outcome is largest for SRK II (0.49 D); all other formulae including ray tracing result in similar values ranging from 0.36 to 0.40 D. Intraocular lens calculation for the refractive group showed that depending on pupil size (3.5 to 2.5 mm), ray tracing delivers values 0.95 to 1.90 D higher compared to the average of Holladay 1, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer Q formulae.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that ray tracing can compete with state-of-the-art IOL calculation formulae for normal eyes. For eyes with previous refractive surgery, IOL powers obtained by ray tracing are significantly higher than those from the other formulae. Thus, a hyperopic shift may be avoided using ray tracing even without clinical history.

Präoperative Berechnung der Stärke intraokularer Linsen bei Problemaugen

The removal of the opaque crystalline lens in cataract surgery and its replacement by an artificial lens has become the most successful surgical intervention in the history of medicine. Modern intraocular lenses, today's micro-incision approach and high-end measurement and computational techniques provide restoration of good visual acuity in the majority of cases. Patients with problem eyes not allowing standard procedures for intraocular lens power calculation require special attention. Among them are highly ametropic subjects with very short or long eyes or patients, whose corneal structures are different from normal due to preceding refractive surgery. The special problems for measurement and lens power calculations in these eyes are dealt with in detail. Based on hitherto unpublished clinical data, causes and possible solutions for the existing problems are discussed. Generally, the best available measurement techniques should be applied in these cases. With respect to the algorithms used it has to be made sure that no additional errors are introduced by the algorithms themselves. The popular SRK II formula should therefore not be used any more. If errors are minimized this way, gross postoperative refractive surprises should be avoided even in problem eyes.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Myopic Refractive Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability of different methods developed to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power after corneal refractive surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Preoperative and postoperative data of all eyes that underwent myopic excimer laser surgery in a private practice (Centro Salus, Bologna, Italy) between 1999 and 2004 were reviewed.

INTERVENTION

The following methods were analyzed: videokeratography, clinical history, Shammas' refraction-derived and clinically derived methods, Rosa's correcting factor, Ferrara's variable refractive index, separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), Feiz-Mannis' formula and nomogram, and Latkany's regression formulas (based on both average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry). The Holladay 1 formula was used for eyes with an axial length between 22 and 24.49 mm and the SRK-T for eyes longer than 24.49 mm. Double-K formulas were also evaluated, when applicable. Each IOL power determined with these methods was compared to a benchmark value, calculated using the preoperative axial length and corneal power and aiming for the preoperative spherical equivalent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean error in IOL power prediction.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight eyes of 98 patients were analyzed. The double-K clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis' formula, double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), and both Latkany's regression formulas were the only methods resulting in a mean IOL power not statistically different (P>0.05) from the benchmark used for comparative purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

When prerefractive surgery data are available, IOL power should be calculated using the double-K clinical history method. Alternative choices may be represented by the Feiz-Mannis' formula, Latkany's regression formulas based on average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry, and the double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvatures. A variant of the latter can be used to calculate IOL power when prerefractive surgery data are not available. Further prospective studies based on patients undergoing phacoemulsification after refractive surgery are needed to validate the results of this theoretical comparison.

Intraocular lens power calculation using ray tracing following excimer laser surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using ray tracing in patients presenting with cataract after excimer laser surgery.

METHODS

Ten eyes of seven consecutive patients who presented for cataract surgery following excimer laser treatment without any pre-refractive biometry data were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. Preoperatively, IOL power calculation was performed using a ray tracing software called OKULIX. Keratometry data (C-Scan) were imported and axial length (IOLMaster) was entered manually. Accuracy of IOL power calculation was investigated by subtracting attempted and achieved spherical equivalent.

RESULTS

Mean spherical equivalent was -3.51+/-2.77 D (range -10.38 to -0.5 D) preoperatively and -1.01+/-1.08 D (range -2.5 to +0.75 D) postoperatively. Mean error was 0.31+/-0.84 D, mean absolute error was 0.74+/-0.46 D, and IOL calculation errors ranged from -1.39 to +1.47 D. A total of 40% of eyes were within +/-0.5 D, 70% within +/-1.0 D, and 100% within +/-1.5 D. Three eyes with corneal radii over 10 mm showed calculation errors exceeding +/-1.0 D. Mean best-corrected visual acuity increased from 20/60 to 20/30 postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

IOL power calculation after excimer laser surgery can be difficult, especially when pre-refractive keratometry values are not available. In these cases, ray tracing combined with corneal topography measurements provides reliable and satisfactory postoperative results. However, it is advisable to be careful when calculating IOL power for eyes with corneal radii exceeding 10 mm because of slightly higher prediction errors.

A New Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Refractive Corneal Surgery

PURPOSE

When calculating the power of an intraocular lens (IOL) with conventional methods in eyes that have previously undergone refractive surgery, in most cases the power is inaccurate. To minimize these errors, a new IOL power calculation formula was developed.

METHODS

A theoretical formula empirically adjusted two variables: 1) the corneal power and 2) the anterior chamber depth (ACD). From the average curvature of the entrance pupil area, weighted according to the Stiles-Crawford effect, the corneal power is calculated by using a relative keratometric index that is a function of the actual corneal curvature, type of keratorefractive surgery, and induced refractive change. Anterior chamber depth is a function of the preoperative ACD, lens thickness, axial length, and the ACD constant. We used our formula in 20 eyes that previously underwent refractive surgery (photorefractive keratectomy [n = 6], laser subepithelial keratomileusis [n = 3], laser in situ keratomileusis [n = 6], and radial keratotomy [n = 5]) and compared our results to other formulas.

RESULTS

Mean postoperative spherical equivalent refraction was +0.26 diopters (D) (standard deviation [SD] 0.73, range: -1.25 to +/- 1.58 D) using our formula, +2.76 D (SD 1.03, range: +0.94 to +4.47 D) using the SRK II, +1.44 D (SD 0.97, range: +0.05 to +4.01 D) with Binkhorst, 1.83 D (SD 1.00, range: -0.26 to +4.21 D) with Holladay I, and -2.04 D (SD 2.19, range: -7.29 to +1.62 D) with Rosa's method. With our formula, 60% of absolute refractive prediction errors were within 0.50 D, 80% within 1.00 D, and 93% within 1.50 D.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first series of patients, we obtained encouraging results. With a greater number of cases, all statistical adjustments related to the different types of surgery should be improved.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone LASIK

OBJECTIVE

To compare methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power for cataract surgery in eyes that have undergone myopic LASIK.

DESIGN

Noncomparative case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven eyes of 8 patients who had previously undergone myopic LASIK (amount of LASIK correction [+/-standard deviation], -5.50+/-2.61 diopters [D]; range, -8.78 to -2.38 D) and subsequently phacoemulsification with implantation of the SA60AT IOLs (Alcon Surgical, Inc., Fort Worth, TX) were included (refractive error after cataract surgery, -0.61 +/- 0.79 D; range, -2.0 to 1.0 D).

METHODS

We evaluated the accuracy of various combinations of: (1) single-K versus double-K (in which pre-LASIK keratometry is used to estimate effective lens position) versions of the IOL formulas; the Feiz-Mannis method was also evaluated; (2) 4 methods for calculating corneal refractive power (clinical history, contact lens overrefraction, adjusted effective refractive power [EffRP(adj)], and Maloney methods); and (3) 4 IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Holladay 2). The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the IOL power calculated using various methods from the power of the implanted IOL, and the F test for variances was performed to assess the consistency of the prediction performance by different methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, mean absolute IOL prediction error, and variance of the IOL prediction error.

RESULTS

Compared with double-K formulas, single-K formulas predicted lower IOL powers than the power implanted and would have left patients hyperopic in most cases; the Feiz-Mannis method had the largest variance. For the Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas, the variances for EffRP(adj) were significantly smaller than those for the clinical history method (0.43 D2 vs. 1.74 D2, P = 0.018 for Hoffer Q; 0.75 D2 vs. 2.35 D2, P = 0.043 for Holladay 1). The Maloney method consistently underestimated the IOL power but had significantly smaller variances (0.19-0.55 D2) than those for the clinical history method (1.09-2.35 D2; P<0.015). There were no significant differences among the variances for the 4 formulas when using each corneal power calculation method.

CONCLUSIONS

The most accurate method was the combination of a double-K formula and corneal values derived from EffRP(adj). The variances in IOL prediction error were smaller with the Maloney and EffRP(adj) methods, and we propose a modified Maloney method and second method using Humphrey data for further evaluation.

Difficult lens power calculations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although cataract extraction seems to be feasible without major technical obstacles, the surgical technique has changed completely, and patients are no longer satisfied with good spectacle-corrected vision but anticipate complete visual rehabilitation after cataract surgery, without correction. To fulfill this desire, toric or accommodative intraocular lenses are of increasing popularity, and the intraocular lens power calculation after keratorefractive surgery has been improved.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review article, we provide an overview of different mathematical strategies of calculating the intraocular lens power with standard formulas and with new algorithms, such as paraxial or numeric ray-tracing. These enhanced techniques may improve the validity of lens power calculation due to reduction of the prediction error, especially in cases with high or excessive corneal astigmatism and after refractive laser surgery. Furthermore, a new calculation scheme for the determination of bitoric eikonic intraocular lenses allows a distortion-free imaging in astigmatic eyes. The biometric determinants for the different formulas and calculation schemes are discussed in detail.

SUMMARY

In difficult cases, standard calculation schemes are overemployed and new mathematical algorithms are necessary to adequately address these problems. Ray-tracing algorithms and other complex mathematical computation schemes are of increasing interest and will more and more replace conventional calculation formulas for determination of intraocular lens power.

New Formula to Calculate Corneal Power After Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the validity of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations utilizing a theoretical variable refractive index correlated to axial length after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in a clinical simulation and in patients who underwent cataract surgery after PRK for myopia.

METHODS

Our study included 374 eyes of 300 patients who had PRK for myopia (-2.00 to -12.00 D, mean -4.83 +/- 2.57 D), divided into three groups: Group I had 44 eyes with small ablation zones of 5 to 5.5 mm; Group II had 49 eyes with large ablation zones of 6 to 7 mm; Group III was the control group of 281 eyes (201 patients; 87 males and 114 females) with small and large ablation zones. PRK was performed using the Aesculap-Meditec MEL 60/94 and MEL 70 lasers, and the corneal power was acquired by corneal topography (EyeSys 2000) and a Nidek KM-800 keratometer.

RESULTS

There was a higher correlation between corneal power and both the change in refraction and axial length when calculated using keratometric measurements. IOL power calculated using keratometric postoperative PRK power was underestimated. The difference between the mean calculated and actual IOL power for emmetropia was 4.30 +/- 2.34 D. A theoretical variable refractive index (obtained from eyes treated with large PRK ablation zones) that correlated with axial length provided the correct keratometric postoperative PRK power: difference between mean calculated and mean actual IOL power was 0.42 +/- 1.23 D.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a theoretical variable refractive index that is correlated to axial length. Utilizing this keratometric correct power, we calculated IOL power similar to that for emmetropia.