Comparing prediction accuracy between total keratometry and conventional keratometry in cataract surgery with refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison between wavefront-derived refraction and auto-refraction

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare objective refractive errors and keratometry measurements obtained using the Nidek OPD-Scan II aberrometer/topographer and Topcon KR 8900 autorefractokeratometer.

METHODS

The right eye medical records of 176 patients aged 18-35 years who were admitted to our clinic as refractive surgery candidates were tested for refractive status and keratometry measurements with a Nidek OPD-Scan II aberrometer/topographer and a standard table-top autorefractokeratometer (Topcon KR 8900) before and after the induction of cycloplegia. Patients who had undergone any eye surgery and had hereditary, ectatic, or acquired corneal pathology were excluded. Refractive data were compared as spheres, cylinders, spherical equivalents, and power vectors before and after the induction of cycloplegia. Flat and steep keratometry (K1-K2) readings were recorded in diopters (D) and axis degrees, respectively, for each eye.

RESULTS

The spherical, cylindrical, spherical equivalence, J0-J45 vector values and K1-K2 readings (D, axis) between the two devices were statistically significant before and after the induction of cycloplegia (p<0.05). Bland-Altman analysis identified mean differences (95%CI of limits of agreement) of 0.77 (-0,57 to 2,11) in sphere, 0.74 (-0,54 to 2,01) in spherical equivalent, -0,07 (-0,41 to 0,26) in J0 vector, 0,06 (-0,31 to 0,43) in J45 vector, -0,16 (-0,66 to 0,33) in K1, -0,23 (-0,79 to 0,33) in K2 values before induction of cycloplegia.

CONCLUSION

The refractive and keratometry results of the Nidek OPD Scan II system and Topcon KR 8900 standard table-top autorefractokeratometer are not interchangeable in healthy adult population before and after induction of cycloplegia.

Prospective evaluation of the ESCRS online calculator for calculation of a multifocal intraocular lens

PURPOSE

To evaluate a recently introduced ESCRS online calculator for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of a multifocal IOL in refractive lens exchange and cataract surgery in a prospective setting.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany.

DESIGN

Prospective, consecutive case series.

METHODS

Eyes that received lens extraction and multifocal IOL implantation were included. The mean prediction error, mean absolute error, and median absolute prediction error (MedAE) provided by the ESCRS online calculator were compared, as were the number of eyes within ±0.5 diopters (D), ±1.0 D, ±2.0 D of target refraction. The SRK/T formula was also included for comparison. Postoperative spherical equivalent was measured at 3 months. 1 eye per patient was included.

RESULTS

88 eyes from 88 patients with a mean age of 62 ± 9.5 years were included. The MedAE was low for all formulas and ranged from 0.26 D (Kane), Hill-RBF (0.27 D), Hoffer Q Savini/Taroni (Hoffer QST) (0.27 D), Barrett Universal II (BUII) (0.28 D), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) (0.29 D), Cooke K6 (0.27 D), 0.30 D (Postoperative spherical Equivalent prediction using Artificial intelligence and Linear algorithms, by Debellemaniére, Gatinel, and Saad [Pearl DGS]) to 0.31 D (SRK/T). No statistically significant difference was found ( P = .627). Considering the number of eyes within ±0.5 D of the calculated refraction the best performing was again the Hill-RBF (84%, 74 eyes), again followed by Kane (71, 81%), EVO, Pearl DGS, Hoffer QST, BUII (each 80%, 70 eyes), Cooke K6 (78%, 69 eyes), and SRK/T (74%). Again, no statistically significant difference was found ( P = .39).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a recently introduced ESCRS online IOL calculator in multifocal IOLs leds to a high number of eyes reaching target refraction and low prediction errors. All formulas performed similarly well. Hill-RBF showed the highest number of eyes within ±0.5 D, but no significance was found.

Comparison of the accuracy of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas after SMILE in Chinese myopic eyes

As of 2021, over 2.8 million small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) procedures have been performed in China. However, knowledge regarding the selection of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formula for post-SMILE cataract patients remains limited. This study included 52 eyes of 26 myopic patients from northern China who underwent SMILE at Tianjin Eye Hospital from September 2022 to February 2023 to investigate the suitability of multiple IOL calculation formulas in post-SMILE patients using a theoretical surgical model. We compared the postoperative results obtained from three artificial intelligence (AI)-based formulas and six conventional formulas provided by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS). These formulas were applied to calculate IOL power using both total keratometry (TK) and keratometry (K) values, and the results were compared to the preoperative results obtained from the Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula for the SMILE patients. Among the evaluated formulas, the results obtained from the Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 Formula with TK (EVO-TK) (0.40 ± 0.29 D, range 0-1.23 D), Barrett True K with K formula (BTK-K, 0.41 ± 0.26 D, range 0.01-1.19 D), and Masket with K formula (Masket-K, 0.44 ± 0.33 D, range 0.02-1.39 D) demonstrated the closest proximity to BUII. Notably, the highest proportion of prediction errors within 0.5 D was observed with the BTK-K (71.15%), EVO-TK (69.23%), and Masket-K (67.31%), with the BTK-K showing a significantly higher proportion than the Masket-K (p < 0.001). Our research indicates that in post-SMILE patients, the EVO-TK, BTK-K, and Masket-K may yield more accurate calculation results. At their current stage in development, AI-based formulas do not demonstrate significant advantages over conventional formulas. However, the application of historical data can enhance the performance of these formulas.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus Eyes Comparing Keratometry, Total Keratometry, and Newer Formulae

PURPOSE

To compare the utility of keratometry vs total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing.

RESULTS

KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE.

CONCLUSIONS

KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used.

Dry Eye Disease as a Cause of Refractive Errors After Cataract Surgery - A Systematic Review

Dry eye disease (DED) is a multifactorial ocular surface disorder characterized by loss of tear film homeostasis with associated ocular symptoms, like dryness, foreign body sensation, and inflammation. Numerous reports confirm an increase in dry eye symptoms after cataract surgery. DED also significantly disturbs preoperative biometric measurements, mainly by changes in keratometry measurements. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of DED on biometric measurements before cataract surgery and postoperative refractive errors. PubMed database was searched for keywords: cataract surgery, dry eye disease, refractive error, refractive outcomes, keratometry, and biometry. Four clinical studies evaluating the effect of DED on refractive errors were included. In all studies, biometry was performed before and after dry eye treatment, and the mean absolute error was compared. Various substances have been used to treat dry eye, such as cyclosporin A, liftitegrast, and loteprednol. The refractive error was significantly lower after treatment in all studies. The results unanimously indicate that refractive errors can be reduced by proper treatment of DED before cataract surgery.

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

PURPOSE

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

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive cross-sectional study.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Standard vs total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery combined with DMEK

PURPOSE

To compare the prediction accuracy of standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (triple DMEK).

SETTING

Tertiary care academic referral center.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Review of 83 eyes (63 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700). 63 eyes were used for statistical analysis. Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), SD, median absolute error, maximum absolute error, root mean squared prediction error, and the percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.50 diopters (D) and ±1.00 D were calculated for 9 multivariate and third-generation formulas using K and TK values (Barrett Universal II, Yeo EVO 2.0, Cooke K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS, Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T). Formulas were additionally tested by using the prediction for an IOL power 1 D below the IOL used (IOLup1D).

RESULTS

For all formulas, MAE was lower for K than for TK by an average of 0.21 D. The lowest MAE value observed was 0.67 D for "adjusted" SRK/T using K, and the highest MAE values observed were 1.24 D and 1.24 D for nonadjusted Hoffer Q and Haigis using TK, respectively. Overall, lower MAE values were observed for multivariate formulas and SRK/T.

CONCLUSIONS

In triple DMEK eyes, the prediction accuracy of K was higher than that of TK. The most accurate formulas were SRK/T and multivariate formulas using K with the IOLup1D adjustment.

Clinical applications of anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography: A systematic review

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a non-invasive method that provides the opportunity to examine tissues by taking cross-sectional images. OCT is increasingly being used to evaluate anterior segment (AS) pathologies. Swept-source (SS) OCT allows greater penetration and achieves better visualization of the internal configuration of AS tissues due to the longer wavelength employed and high scan speeds. We reviewed the utilization of AS SS-OCT in various conditions including glaucoma, ocular surface pathologies, iris tumors, refractive surgery, cataract surgery, and scleral diseases. A systematic literature search was carried out on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases between January 1, 2008, and September 1, 2022 using the following keywords: AS SS-OCT; dry eye and SS-OCT; ocular surface and SS-OCT; cornea and SS-OCT; dystrophy and SS-OCT; glaucoma and SS-OCT; ocular surface tumors and SS-OCT; conjunctival tumors and SS-OCT; refractive surgery and SS-OCT; cataract and SS-OCT; biometry and SS-OCT; sclera and SS-OCT; iris and SS-OCT; ciliary body and SS-OCT; artificial intelligence and SS-OCT. A total of 221 studies were included in this review. Review of the existing literature shows that SS-OCT offers several advantages in the diagnosis of AS diseases. Exclusive features of SS-OCT including rapid scanning, deeper tissue penetration, and better image quality help improve our understanding of various AS pathologies.

Comparison of the Predictive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Phototherapeutic Keratectomy in Granular Corneal Dystrophy Type 2

Granular corneal dystrophy type 2 (GCD2) is an autosomal dominant disease affecting vision. Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) is advantageous in removing vision-threatening corneal opacities and postponing keratoplasty; however, it potentially disturbs accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. The myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method with or without the central island has been reported; nevertheless, an optimal method has not yet been established. To compare the predictive accuracy of post-PTK IOL power calculations in GCD2, the retrospective data of 30 eyes from July 2017 to December 2020 were analyzed. All GCD2-affected eyes underwent post-PTK standard cataract surgery using the WaveLight EX500 platform (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) under a single surgeon. The mean prediction error (MPE) and absolute error (MAE) with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K, Haigis, and SRK/T by standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK), where possible, were analyzed. Barrett Universal II and SRK/T showed significantly superior MPE, and MAE compared with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method. TK was not significantly superior to K in the same formula. In conclusion, this study suggests that these biometries and formulas, especially Barrett Universal II and SRK/T, are potentially useful in IOL power calculation in GCD2 after PTK.

Lower refractive prediction accuracy of total keratometry using intraocular lens formulas loaded onto a swept-source optical biometer

PURPOSE

To compare refractive outcomes calculated using intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas loaded onto the IOLMaster 700 with the employment of anterior keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK).

METHODS

A total of 225 eyes of 225 patients underwent uneventful cataract surgery and implantation of a single model of nontoric monofocal IOL by a single surgeon. All eyes underwent preoperative ocular biometric measurements with the IOLMaster 700. Refractive outcomes, including the mean numerical prediction error (MNE); standard deviation (SD); adjusted mean absolute prediction error (MAE); adjusted median absolute prediction error (MedAE); percentages of eyes with adjusted prediction error (PE) within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, ± 0.75, and ± 1.00 diopter; and IOL Formula Performance Index (FPI), were compared between the K-based formula and the TK-based formula of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 2, and Hoffer Q. Axial length (short, medium, and long) subgroup analyses and anterior and posterior keratometry (flat, medium, and steep) subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The K-based formula performed better than the TK-based formula in the accuracy of refractive prediction of each IOL calculation formula: BUII-K (FPI 0.690), BUII-TK (0.677), Haigis-K (0.617), Haigis-TK (0.584), SRK/T-K (0.608), SRK/T-TK (0.595), Holladay 2-K (0.419), Holladay 2-TK (0.406), Hoffer Q-K (0.364), and Hoffer Q-TK (0.356). The subgroup analyses of refractive prediction outcomes showed that TK influenced the refractive outcomes in eyes with relatively normal ranges of axial length and anterior keratometry.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TK instead of K leads to lower refractive prediction accuracy of the IOL power calculation formulas loaded on the IOLMaster 700.