Intraocular lens calculations status after corneal refractive surgery

Central corneal thickness and its determinants in a geriatric population: a population-based study

PURPOSE

To determine the distribution of central corneal thickness (CCT) and its determinants in an Iranian geriatric population.

METHODS

This population-based study was conducted in 2019 in Tehran, the capital of Iran, using stratified multistage random cluster sampling. The study population was all residents ≥60 years of age. First, preliminary optometric and ocular health examinations were performed including the measurement of uncorrected and best-corrected visual acuity, objective and subjective refraction, anterior and posterior segment examination. The study participants then underwent corneal imaging using Pentacam HR.

RESULTS

Out of 3791 invitees, 3310 participated in this study (response rate: 87.3%). The mean CCT and apex corneal thicknesses were 528 µ (95% CI: 526-529) and 529 µ (95% CI: 527-530), respectively. The highest and lowest mean corneal thickness was related to the superior (620 µ: 95% CI: 618-622) and the temporal (591 µ: 95% CI: 590-592) paracentral points, respectively. According to the multiple linear regression model, the CCT was significantly inversely related to keratometry readings (K1 and K2) and had a statistically significant direct relationship with intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal eccentricity (ECC), and corneal volume (CV) (all p values <0.05). The CCT was significantly higher in diabetic patients (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSION

The CCT values in the geriatric Iranian population were lower than the values reported in most previous studies. The CCT is mostly influenced by IOP and corneal parameters (curvature, shape factor, and volume) and is not affected by demographic factors, refractive error, and ocular biometric components.

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.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry, Barrett True-K With and Without Posterior Cornea Measurements, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L Formulas After Myopic Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Barrett TKNH with posterior corneal measurements (Barrett TKNH with PC), Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas in patients with cataract who had prior myopic refractive surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with prior myopic refractive surgery undergoing cataract extraction. Mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) of refraction prediction were compared for each formula. Interactions of each biometry measurement were modeled for each formula to evaluate those with the most significant impact on refraction prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen eyes of 79 patients were analyzed. MAE was 0.40 ± 0.33 diopters (D) for intraoperative aberrometry and 0.42 ± 0.31 D for the Barrett TKNH, 0.38 ± 0.30 D for the Barrett TKNH with PC, 0.47 ± 0.38 D for the Shammas-PL, and 0.56 ± 0.39 D for the Haigis-L formulas. Comparisons between formulas were significant for Barrett TKNH versus Barrett TKNH with PC formulas (P = .046), Barrett TKNH with PC versus Shammas-PL formulas (P = .023), and for all comparisons with the Haigis-L formula (P < .001), and not significant for all other comparisons (P > .05). Eyes were within ±0.50 D of prediction 73%, 72%, 69%, 62%, and 52% of the time for intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett TKNH with PC, Barrett TKNH, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas, respectively. Corneal asphericity (Q value) was significantly associated with prediction error for all five methods. Changes in anterior chamber depth had a significant impact on Shammas-PL prediction errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer technology using information from the posterior cornea modestly improved outcomes when compared to established methods for intraocular lens selection in eyes that had previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(1):60-68.].

Color light-emitting diode reflection topography: Validation of Equivalent K Reading for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous corneal myopic refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the Equivalent K reading (EKR) from Color Light-Emitting Diode Corneal Topographer (Cassini, iOptics) to that of other no-history formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

SETTING

Centro de Oftalmología Barraquer, Barcelona, Spain.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 37 eyes, the refractive outcomes of the Cassini EKR entered into the Haigis formula were compared to those of the Barrett-True K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL formulas and the Triple-S method combined with the Haigis formula. Optimized lens constants for virgin eyes were used. The mean prediction error (PE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D and ±1.00 D were calculated.

RESULTS

The Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Barrett True-K no-history methods produced a myopic mean PE that was significantly different from zero (p<0.01, p<0.01 and p=0.01, respectively), whereas the mean PEs of Cassini EKR and the Triple-S combined with the Haigis formula were not different from zero. Repeated measures ANOVA disclosed a significant difference among all methods (p<0.0001). The MedAE of the Cassini EKR, Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Triple-S were, respectively, 0.34D, 0.34D, 0.49 D, 0.48 D and 0.31D (p=0.0026).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the combination of standard Haigis formula with Cassini EKR was comparable to other no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

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.

Changes in Corneal Refractive Power for Patients With Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy After DMEK

PURPOSE

To quantify changes in the refractive power of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) so as to optimize the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.

METHODS

This study included 28 eyes of 21 patients (age 66.6 ± 9.4 years, 11 female, 10 male). Scheimpflug-based Oculus Pentacam imaging was performed before and after DMEK surgery for Fuchs endothelial dystrophy. Corneal power was measured using the K-value of simulated keratometry (SimK) of Pentacam and total corneal refractive power (TCRP) in corneal zones from 1 to 8 mm (SimK 1-8, TCRP1-8). We also analyzed changes in the keratometric power deviation (KPD) and pachymetry.

RESULTS

Changes in the SimK in the central cornea were minimal and not significant (SimK 3: before = 43.24 ± 1.33 D; after = 43.01 ± 1.37 D; P = 0.101) but they decreased significantly in the corneal periphery (SimK 4: P = 0.021; SimK 5: P = 0.004; SimK 6: P = 0.002; SimK 7: P = 0.002; SimK 8: P = 0.008). Postoperative TCRP in the central cornea decreased significantly compared with preoperative values (TCRP 3: before = 43.05 ± 1.44 D; after = 41.94 ± 1.34 D; P < 0.001); [TCRP 4: before = 43.16 ± 1.40 (D); after = 41.99 ± 1.27 (D); P < 0.001]. The keratometric power deviation increased significantly after DMEK (before = 0.74 ± 0.45 D; after = 1.40 ± 0.26 D; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DMEK surgery induced a significant change in the refractive power of the posterior surface of the cornea and thus a decrease in the TCRP of about 1 D, whereas the SimK, which measures only the anterior cornea, remained nearly unchanged. To avoid a hyperopic surprise, it is essential that this TCRP decrease is not overlooked in intraocular lens power calculations.

Bilateral cataract surgery in a 56-year-old man following presbyopia laser in situ keratomileusis: A case report

We describe a case of bilateral cataract surgery in a 56-year-old man following presbyopia laser in situ keratomileusis. The preoperative refraction was −2.00 in the right eye and −0.75 × 105 in the left eye. On the last examination, the uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/80 that can be corrected to 20/20 in the right eye with a refraction of −2.25 and 20/20 in the left eye, whereas the visual acuity for reading was 20/40 in the right eye and 20/80 in the left eye with a refraction of +2.25. His monovision surgery design of previous cornea surgery was also taken into consideration for the phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Two-step surgery is helpful for predicting an accurate IOL degree.

Outcomes of photorefractive keratectomy instead of phototherapeutic keratectomy for patients with granular corneal dystrophy type 2

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate visual function and postoperative refractive errors in patients with granular corneal dystrophy type 2 (GCD2) and cataracts who underwent photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) instead of phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) following cataract surgery to avoid PTK-induced central island formation and reduce refractive errors after cataract surgery.

METHODS

The medical records of 14 eyes from nine patients (one man and eight women; mean age, 69.0 ± 8.5 years) with GCD2 and cataracts were evaluated. All patients underwent PTK using the PRK mode 3 months after cataract surgery. We analyzed corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), refractive errors, and corneal astigmatism derived from Fourier analysis and assessed the incidence of complications in cataract surgery and PTK.

RESULTS

The mean CDVA logMAR values were 0.42 ± 0.19, 0.38 ± 0.18, and 0.16 ± 0.12 before and after cataract surgery and after PTK, respectively. CDVA improved significantly after PTK, as compared with both before and after cataract surgery (P < 0.001). The mean absolute errors after cataract surgery and PTK were 0.53 ± 0.43 and 1.61 ± 1.01 diopters, respectively. Pre- and postoperative Fourier indices did not significantly vary in the 3-mm diameter zone, and only the asymmetry component of the 6-mm diameter zone significantly (P <0.01) increased postoperatively. No central island formation and no other marked complications were observed postoperatively in any case.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing PTK using the PRK mode following cataract surgery may be effective for patients with GCD2 and cataracts.

Intraocular lens power calculation following laser refractive surgery

Refractive outcomes following cataract surgery in patients that have previously undergone laser refractive surgery have traditionally been underwhelming. This is related to several key issues including the preoperative assessment (keratometry) and intraocular lens power calculations. Peer-reviewed literature is overwhelmed by the influx of methodology to manipulate the corneal or intraocular lens (IOL) powers following refractive surgery. This would suggest that the optimal derivative formula has yet been introduced. This review discusses the problems facing surgeons approaching IOL calculations in these post-refractive laser patients, the existing formulae and programs to address these concerns. Prior published outcomes will be reviewed.

The effect of corneal irregularity on astigmatism measurement by automated versus ray tracing keratometry

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of corneal irregularity on astigmatism assessment using automated keratometry (AK) (IOLMaster) versus ray tracing keratometry (Pentacam). This is an observational case series approved by the institutional review board of Dongguk University Hospital, Goyang, South Korea. A total of 207 eyes of 207 cataract patients were included. Preoperative corneal astigmatism was measured by both IOLMaster and Pentacam. Corneal irregularity index (IR) was calculated in Fourier analysis map of Pentacam. AK by IOLMaster and total corneal refractive power (TCRP, 3 mm and 4 mm zone analysis with pupil centered) by Pentacam were selected and the difference between the 2 measurements (delta Δ) was calculated using vector analysis. Ocular residual astigmatism (ORA) after cataract surgery was calculated by subtracting 6-month postoperative refractive astigmatism (RA) measurements from corresponding preoperative values (AK, TCRP3, and TCRP4). The mean irregularity index measured was 0.042 ± 0.019 mm (mean ± standard deviation) and was positively correlated with age and magnitude of corneal astigmatism (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05). The difference (Δ) between TCRPs and AK (ΔTCRPs-AK) was 0.43 ± 0.37 (TCRP3) and 0.39 ± 0.35 (TCRP4) diopters. Linear regression analysis revealed that age (P < 0.001), IR (P < 0.001), and AK (P < 0.001) were positively correlated with ΔTCRPs-AK. In highly irregular corneas (IR over 0.77 diopters: mean + 2 standard deviation), postoperative ORAs calculated using TCRPs were significantly lower than ORAs calculated using AK. Corneal irregularities significantly impact astigmatism assessment by IOLMaster (AK) and Pentacam (TCRPs). Compared with AK, TCRPs were more accurate in predicting postoperative residual astigmatism in highly irregular corneas.

[Corneal power after descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) - Modeling and concept for calculation of intraocular lenses]

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) is an established treatment option for pathologies of the corneal endothelium. It is typically accompanied with a hyperopic shift in refraction. The purpose of this work is to predict corneal geometry after DSAEK based on model data and to present a concept how to determine corneal power, e.g. for intraocular power calculation to prevent a refractive surprise with a subsequent cataract surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on data of the Kooijman schematic model eye we simulated a microkeratome cut parallel to the corneal front surface for donor trephination to determine the radial thickness profile of the posterior corneal donor lamella. This donor lamella was tension-neutrally adapted to the back surface of the host and the profile of the cornea after DSAEK was derived and characterized by a quadric surface. Comparison with the curvature of the host without and with donor could resample hyperopic shift which was published in literature. A method was shown how to determine corneal power after DSAEK.

RESULTS

From the data of the Kooijman schematic model eye and the donor characteristics central / peripheral corneal thickness was increased by 150 / 250μm due to adaptation of the donor lamella. Geometry of corneal back surface showed a reduced radius of curvature (by about 0.9mm) and a change in conic constant (by about -0.13). Persistent clinically observed hyperopic shift correlates to the change in geometry of the cornea due to adaptation of the donor lamella, which reduces corneal power by 0.88 D.

CONCLUSION

DSAEK leads to a hyperopic shift in refraction, which can be explained by a change in corneal back surface geometry. In case of subsequent cataract surgery, the intraocular lens power should be calculated with consideration of both corneal surfaces rather than keratometry or corneal topography in order to minimize a systematic hyperopic shift due to misinterpretation of corneal power after DSAEK. In case of a Triple-DSAEK, a target refraction of -1.5 D should be chosen in order to safely prevent postoperative hyperopia.

New Scheimpflug camera device in measuring corneal power changes after myopic laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of a combined Scheimpflug camera-Placido disk device (Sirius, CSO, Italy) in evaluating corneal power changes after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-seven eyes of 237 patients that underwent myopic PRK with a refractive error, measured as spherical equivalent, ranging from -10.75 D to -0.5D (mean -4.63 ± 2.21D), were enrolled in this study. Corneal power evaluation using Sirius were performed before, 1, 3 and 6 months after myopic PRK. Mean simulated keratometry (SimK) and mean pupil power (MPP) were measured. Correlations between changes in corneal power, measured with SimK and MPP, and variations in subjective refraction, calculated at corneal plane, were evaluated using Pearson test at every follow up; differences between preoperative and postoperative data were evaluated with the Student paired t-test.

RESULTS

A good correlation has been detected between the variations in subjective refraction measured at corneal plane 1, 3 and 6 months after myopic PRK and both SimK (R(2) = 0.8463; R(2) = 0.8643; R(2) = 0.7102, respectively) and MPP (R(2) = 0.6622; R(2) = 0.5561; R(2) = 0.5522, respectively) but corneal power changes are statistically undervalued for both parameters (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even if our data should be confirmed in further studies, SimK and MPP provided by this new device do not seem to accurately reflect the changes in corneal power after myopic PRK.

Accuracy of Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry readings after corneal refractive surgery in the absence of clinical history

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To identify the most accurate combination of Pentacam's equivalent keratometry readings (EKR) and intraocular lens power formula when the clinical history is unavailable.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 18 patients underwent cataract surgery after refractive surgery. The Pentacam 4.5- and 3.0-mm EKR were combined with the SRK II, SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, and Holladay I and II formulas.

RESULTS

The smallest deviation from the predicted value was achieved by combining the 4.5 EKR with the Holladay II formula (mean arithmetic deviation, -0.2 ± 0.4 dpt).

CONCLUSION

The 4.5-mm EKR + Holladay II formula can accurately calculate intraocular lens power in patients with previous refractive surgery.

The accuracy of the double-K adjustment for third-generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in previous keratorefractive surgery eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of the double-K (DK) modification on third-generation formulas.

METHODS

Thirty-eight previously myopic and 24 previously hyperopic eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) insertion after Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) were evaluated. Pre-LASIK refraction and keratometry, post-LASIK topography, axial length (AL), IOL type and power, and 1-month postphacoemulsification refraction were recorded spherical equivalent after phacoemulsification (SE(postphaco)). Measured corneal power was adjusted using published and validated methods for postmyopic and posthyperopic LASIK. For each eye, and using SE(postphaco), different DK-IOL formulas were used to calculate the corresponding IOL power, the outcome measure, which was compared with the implanted IOL.

RESULTS

DK-Holladay 1 yielded the highest Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), 0.955 for myopes and 0.943 for high myopes (AL>26 mm). Mean error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) for myopes for DK Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff theoretical formula [DK-SRK/T] were 0.44±0.84 D and 0.75±0.61 D for DK-SRK/T compared with -0.04±0.67 D and 0.52±0.40 D for DK-Holladay 1 (P<0.001 and P=0.016, respectively), and 0.03±0.88 and 0.64±0.58 for DK-Hoffer Q. For high myopes, ME and MAE were 0.75±0.81 D and 0.84±0.69 D for DK-SRK/T, and -0.05±0.74 D (P<0.0001) and 0.57±0.45 D (P=0.019) for DK-Holladay 1. About 29% of DK-SRK/T eyes with large AL had MAE>1.5 D, compared with 0% for DK-Holladay 1 and 14% for DK-Hoffer-Q. Eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK faired similarly for all formulas, with similar PCCs, and only 8% in each category with MAE>1.5 D.

CONCLUSIONS

DK-SRK/T overestimates IOL power in eyes with large AL, especially with concomitant steep pre-lasik keratometry. Among third-generation formulas, DK-Holladay 1 seems more accurate to use in postmyopic LASIK eyes.

Origins of the keratometer and its evolving role in ophthalmology

The keratometer, or ophthalmometer as it was originally known, had its origins in the attempt to discover the seat of accommodation in the eye. Since that early beginning, it has been re-invented a number of times, with improvements and modifications made in the original principles of its design for new applications that arose as ophthalmology advanced. The cornea is not only responsible for the majority of the refraction in the eye, but is also readily accessible for measurement and modification. The keratometer's ability to measure the cornea has allowed it to play a central role in critical advances in ophthalmic history. This review describes the origins and principles of this instrument, the novel applications that led to the keratometer's continued resurgences over its nearly 250-year history, and the modern devices that have borrowed its basic principles and are beginning to replace it in common clinical practice.

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.

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

Cataract surgery after corneal refractive surgery can be challenging for the ocular surgeon due to the difficulty with accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power determination and unexpected refractive surprises. As clinicians have done more work, a number of error sources have been determined. Furthermore, an increasing number of methods to avoid these refractive surprises have been proposed. The combination of this work has resulted in recommendations for the modification of standard IOL power calculations to improve outcomes. The following article includes a brief on, and by no means, inclusive, error sources and ways to compensate for them.

Calculations of Corneal Power After Corneo-Refractive Surgery from Keratometry and Change of Spectacle Refraction: Some Considerations on the “Clinical History Method”

PURPOSE

To derive corneal power after kerato-refractive laser surgery (KRS) to be used for a subsequent intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

MODEL

Based on the proportion of curvatures of the corneal front and back surface, the central thickness, and the ablation characteristics, we demonstrate a vergence-based formalism to derive the equivalent and back vertex corneal power before and after KRS from the preoperative measured keratometry. As a second option, we demonstrate in the paper how to derive the respective values from the postoperative (instead of the preoperative) measured keratometry.

EXAMPLE

Initial refraction before/after KRS, -12.0/-2.0 D; corneal thickness, 550/440 microm; front/back surface power 48.20-5.81 D, measured Zeiss keratometry before KRS, 42.5 D. After KRS, we calculate a corneal front surface power of 39.82 D and an equivalent/back vertex power and keratometry of 34.08/34.48/35.11 D (result of the "Clinical History Method" at spectacle/corneal plane 32.50/33.96 D). Calculated corneal power values are around 2-3 D lower than measured Zeiss keratometry (37.0 D), which will lead to an IOL power overestimation of about 3-4 D and subsequent hyperopia.

CONCLUSIONS

This formalism may help to prevent hyperopia after cataract surgery subsequent to refractive surgery for myopia.

Use of the pentacam true net corneal power for intraocular lens calculation in eyes after refractive corneal surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy and validity of true net corneal power of the Pentacam system to provide a keratometry reading for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in postoperative refractive surgery eyes.

METHODS

Refraction, an automated keratometry reading, and true net corneal power were measured for 30 eyes that required cataract surgery and had previously undergone refractive surgery. Target refraction values calculated with the SRK/T formula using true net corneal power were compared with postoperative manifest refraction values.

RESULTS

Using true net corneal power, the mean deviation from the desired postoperative cataract refractive outcome was 0.47 +/- 0.56 diopters (D); the actual refraction was within +/- 0.50 D of the intended refraction for 70% of eyes (21/30) and within +/- 1.00 D for 93% of eyes (28/30).

CONCLUSIONS

The true net corneal power can be used as a keratometry reading for eyes with previous refractive surgery requiring cataract surgery.

The comparison of central and mean true-net power (Pentacam) in calculating IOL-power after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of central true net corneal power (cTNP) and mean true net corneal power (mTNP) of the Pentacam system to give a keratometry (K) reading for calculating IOL (intraocular lens) power in eyes following refractive surgery.

METHODS

Refraction, an automated K-reading (Km), cTNP and mTNP were measured for 15 eyes that required cataract surgery and had previously undergone refractive surgery. The difference between postoperative manifest refraction values and target refraction values calculated with the SRK/T formula using cTNP were compared with the one using mTNP.

RESULTS

The mean deviation from the desired post-cataract refractive outcome was 0.60 diopter (D)+/-0.47 (standard deviation) using cTNP; 0.75+/-0.54 using mTNP (p=0.386). The actual refraction was within +/-0.50D of the intended refraction for 60% (cTNP) and 33.3% (mTNP) of eyes, and within +/-1.00D for 93% (cTNP) and 66.7% (mTNP) of eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not statistically significant, the cTNP showed better accuracy than mTNP to give a keratometry (K) reading for post-refractive surgery eyes requiring cataract surgery.

Corneal refractive power estimation and intraocular lens calculation after hyperopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To identify key independent variables in estimating corneal refractive power (KBC) after hyperopic LASIK.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PARTICIPANTS

We included 24 eyes of 16 hyperopic patients who underwent LASIK with subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the same eye.

METHODS

Pre-LASIK and post-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE) refractions and topographies, axial length, implant type and power, and 3-month postphacoemulsification SE were recorded. Using the double-K Hoffer Q formula, corneal power was backcalculated for every eye (KBC), regression-based formulas derived, and corresponding IOL powers calculated and compared with published methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and arithmetic and absolute corneal and IOL power errors.

RESULTS

Adjusting either the average central corneal power (ACCP(3mm)) or SimK based on the laser-induced spherical equivalent change (DeltaSE) resulted in an estimated corneal power (ACCP(adj) and SimK(adj)) with highest correlation with KBC (PCC=0.940 and 0.956, respectively) and lowest absolute corneal estimation error (0.37+/-0.45 and 0.38+/-0.39 diopter [D], respectively). The ACCP(adj) closely mirrored published DeltaSE-based adjustments of central corneal power on different topographers, whereas DeltaSE-based SimK adjustments varied across platforms. Using ACCP(adj) or SimK(adj) in the double-K Hoffer Q, using ACCP(3mm) or SimK in single-K Hoffer Q and adjusting the resultant IOL power based on DeltaSE, or applying Masket's formula all yielded accurate and similar IOL powers. The Latkany method consistently underestimated IOL power. The Feiz-Mannis and clinical history methods yielded poor IOL correlations and large IOL errors.

CONCLUSION

After hyperopic LASIK, adjusting either corneal power or IOL power based on DeltaSE accurately estimates the appropriate IOL power.

[Measurement of the central corneal power after myopic LASIK]

PURPOSE

Comparison of the central corneal refractive power before and after myopic LASIK using the Keratograph and the Pentacam. The Scheimpflug technique (Pentacam) enables the measurement of the corneal refractive power by examining the anterior and posterior corneal curvature.

METHOD

The corneal refractive power of 59 eyes was examined before, 3 months and 6 months after myopic LASIK. The refractive power was measured at the corneal apex and at a distance of 2 and 4 mm. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test; a p value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

At the corneal apex and at a distance of 2 mm the findings with the Keratograph showed a higher refractive power of up to 1.05 D. The differences were statistically significant at all times. At a distance of 4 mm from the corneal apex postoperatively there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The results using the Pentacam system showed a lower corneal refractive power following myopic LASIK at all times. Its measuring principle compared to that of the Keratograph should be preferred when detecting changes of the refractive power of the central cornea after corneal refractive procedures.

Intraocular lens power calculation after radial keratotomy: Estimating the refractive corneal power

PURPOSE

To evaluate the most accurate method for corneal power determination in patients with previous radial keratotomy (RK).

SETTING

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of data for 16 eyes of 14 patients with a history of RK and subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation was performed. Outcome measures included axial length, postoperative topography, type and power of IOL implanted, and postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refraction at 3 to 6 months. Average central corneal power (ACCP) was defined as the average of the mean powers of the central Placido rings. For each eye, simulated K-readings and different values of ACCP computed corresponding to different central corneal diameters were used in each case, along with the implanted IOL power, to back-calculate the SE refraction (Ref) via the double-K adjusted Holladay 1 IOL formula. The predicted refractive error was hence computed as (Ref - SE), both in algebraic and absolute values.

RESULTS

The ACCP over the central 3.0 mm (ACCP(3mm)) yielded the lowest absolute predicted refractive error (0.25 +/- 0.38 diopters [D]), which was statistically lower than the error for ACCP(1mm) (P<.001) and for the simulated K-value (P = .033). It also resulted in 87.5% of eyes being within +/-0.50 D and 100% within +/-1.00 D of the actual postoperative refraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Corneal refractive power after RK was best described by averaging the topographic data of the central 3.0 mm area. Applying this method, together with a double-K IOL formula, achieved excellent IOL power predictability.

Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of Orbscan II slit-scanning videokeratography for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with previous photorefractive surgery for myopia.

SETTING

Private practice, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

METHODS

Corneal power (K) was measured by manual keratometry, Placido-based videokeratography (Atlas), slit-scanning videokeratography (Orbscan II), and contact lens overrefraction in 21 post-photoablation eyes having cataract surgery. Postoperative data collected after phacoemulsification were used to back-calculate corneal power (BCK). The BCK values were statistically compared at 3.0 to 6.0 mm central Orbscan II curvature and power measurements, including total axial power, total tangential power, total mean power, and total optical power. Similar comparisons were made to Atlas curvature at the 0.0 to 10.0 mm zones.

RESULTS

The mean corneal power after refractive surgery based on BCK values using the Holladay 2 formula (BCK H2) was 39.35 diopters (D) +/- 2.58 (SD). The mean manual value (40.52 +/- 1.95 D) and Atlas-based values were statistically higher than BCK H2 values (P<.001). The mean corneal power calculated from historical data was 39.33 +/- 2.70 D (P = .83 to BCK H2; n = 19) and from contact lens overrefraction, 41.38 +/- 3.11 D (P = .19; n = 5). Orbscan II parameters (n = 21) of the total mean power (3.0 mm, 39.10 +/- 2.63 D), total tangential power (3.0 mm, 39.11 +/- 2.60), total axial power (5.0 mm, 39.19 +/- 2.55 D), and total optical power (3.0 mm, 39.08 +/- 2.78 D; 4.0 mm, 39.39 +/- 2.76 D) were statistically similar to both the historical and BCK H2 values (P>.11). If used prospectively, 80.9% of eyes would have been within +/-0.50 D of the targeted refraction using a 4.0 mm total optical power, 76.2% using a 5.0 mm total axial power, and 42.1% using the historical method.

CONCLUSION

The Orbscan II 5.0 mm total axial power and 4.0 mm total optical power can be used to more accurately predict true corneal power than the history-based method and may be particularly useful when pre-LASIK data are unavailable.

Calculation of intraocular lens power after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

Underestimation of required intraocular lens (IOL) power with resultant hyperopia is common in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes. A number of methods to minimize error have been proposed but most studies have been small and theoretical.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 34 eyes that had undergone routine phacoemulsification and IOL implantation after photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis. Sixteen eyes were included in the final analysis. Using known pre- and postoperative data, four methods were used to obtain keratometric values combined with three common IOL formulae (Holladay 2, SRK/T and Hoffer Q) and Koch's published Double-K nomogram. The Double-K method was also used in conjunction with the Holladay 2 formula. Target refractions were calculated and then compared to actual postoperative results.

RESULTS

The Clinical History method at the spectacle plane produced the lowest mean K-values. Shammas adjustment formula combined with the Holladay 2 and Hoffer Q produced results closest to emmetropia. The Double-K methods produced the least number of hyperopic results. Overall, all methods would have resulted in unacceptably high rates of hyperopia and deviation from target refraction.

CONCLUSIONS

No method produces acceptably consistent results because modern IOL formulae were designed for presurgical eyes. Accuracy will only be improved when new IOL formulae based on the anatomy of postrefractive eyes become available. Shammas adjustment formula and regression formulae are viable alternatives especially when there is a lack of preoperative data. The Double-K methods are best suited to avoiding a hyperopic surprise.

The AS biometry technique--a novel technique to aid accurate intraocular lens power calculation after corneal laser refractive surgery

Intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation for cataract surgery has been shown to be inaccurate after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Many techniques exist to calculate corneal power with varying results and require the clinician to be aware of the pitfalls of IOL power calculation in post-refractive eyes. The AS biometry method proposed here is a simple method which does not rely on the calculation of corneal power. This new method is compared to the current gold standard the clinical history method (CHM). Twenty-nine eyes of 15 patients had routine biometry prior to LASIK, LASEK or PRK. The range of pre-operative spherical equivalent refractive error was -5.37 to +4.00 diopters. The post-operative refraction was measured at 3-6 months. The IOL power calculation was calculated using the AS biometry method and the CHM. The two methods were compared using the Student's paired t-test and the Bland Altman technique. There was no statistical difference between the AS biometry method and the CHM. The paired Student's t-test comparing the AS biometry method and the CHM showed no statistical difference, t=0.33 with a p-value of 0.75, at a 95% confidence interval. The authors conclude that the AS biometry technique is as accurate as the CHM. The former is a simpler method which avoids many of the pitfalls and confounding factors involved in IOL power calculation following corneal excimer laser surgery. However, like the CHM it requires measurements prior to laser surgery.

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.

Contact lens overrefraction variability in corneal power estimation after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy and precision of the contact lens overrefraction (CLO) method in determining corneal refractive power in post-refractive-surgery eyes.

SETTING

Refractive Surgery Service and Contact Lens Service, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

METHODS

Fourteen eyes of 7 subjects who had a single myopic laser in situ keratomileusis procedure within 12 months with refractive stability were included in this prospective case series. The CLO method was compared with the historical method of predicting the corneal power using 4 different lens fitting strategies and 3 refractive pupil scan sizes (3 mm, 5 mm, and total pupil). Rigid lenses included 3 9.0 mm overall diameter lenses fit flat, steep, and an average of the 2, and a 15.0 mm diameter lens steep fit. Cycloplegic CLO was performed using the autorefractor function of the Nidek OPD-Scan ARK-10000. Results with each strategy were compared with the corneal power estimated with the historical method. The bias (mean of the difference), 95% limits of agreement, and difference versus mean plots for each strategy are presented.

RESULTS

In each subject, the CLO-estimated corneal power varied based on lens fit. On average, the bias between CLO and historical methods ranged from -0.38 to +2.42 diopters (D) and was significantly different from 0 in all but 3 strategies. Substantial variability in precision existed between fitting strategies, with the range of the 95% limits of agreement approximating 0.50 D in 2 strategies and 2.59 D in the worst-case scenario. The least precise fitting strategy was use of flat-fitting 9.0 mm diameter lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy and precision of the CLO method of estimating corneal power in post-refractive-surgery eyes was highly variable on the basis of how rigid lense were fit. One of the most commonly used fitting strategies in clinical practice--flat-fitting a 9.0 diameter lens-resulted in the poorest accuracy and precision. Results also suggest use of large-diameter lenses may improve outcomes.

Keratometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using Orbscan II in Eyes With Laser in situ Keratomileusis

PURPOSE

To compare the results of comeal keratometry after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) obtained by the Gaussian optics formula and the clinical history method.

METHODS

Sixty-one consecutive patients (121 eyes) who had undergone LASIK were recruited in this retrospective case-controlled study. The K-value obtained from the Gaussian optics formula (CalK) based on postoperative corneal topography by Orbscan II (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) and ultrasound pachymetry was compared with that obtained from the clinical history method (estK). Keratometry measured by these two methods was compared using the paired sample t test and Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

A high correlation was noted between K-value obtained by the clinical history method and the Gaussian optics formula (R = 0.97, P < .001). The mean difference between the two methods is 0.13 diopters (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

K reading derived from the Gaussian optics formula correlated closely to that obtained from the clinical history method and would be especially useful in patients with no preoperative LASIK treatment data.

Intraocular lens calculations after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of refractive surgery on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation, compare methods of IOL power calculation after refractive surgery, evaluate the effect of pre-refractive surgery refractive error on IOL deviation, review the literature on determining IOL power after refractive surgery, and introduce a formula for IOL calculation for use after refractive surgery for myopia.

SETTING

Laser & Corneal Surgery Associates and Center for Ocular Tear Film Disorders, New York, New York, USA.

METHODS

This retrospective noncomparative case series comprised 21 patients who had uneventful cataract extraction and IOL implantation after previous uneventful myopic refractive surgery. Six methods of IOL calculation were used: clinical history (IOL(HisK)), clinical history at the spectacle plane (IOL(HisKs)), vertex (IOL(vertex)), back-calculated (IOL(BC)), calculation based on average keratometry (IOL(avgK)), and calculation based on flattest keratometry (IOL(flatK)). Each method result was compared to an "exact" IOL (IOL(exact)) that would have resulted in emmetropia and then compared to the pre-refractive surgery manifest refraction using linear regression. The paired t test was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

The IOL(HisKs) was the most accurate method for IOL calculations, with a mean deviation from emmetropia of -0.56 diopter +/-1.59 (D), followed by the IOL(BC) (+1.06 +/- 1.51 D), IOL(vertex) (+1.51 +/- 1.95 D), IOL(flatK) (-1.72 +/- 2.19 D), IOL(HisK) (-1.76 +/- 1.76 D), and IOL(avgK) (-2.32 +/- 2.36 D). There was no statistical difference between IOL(HisKs) and IOL(exact) in myopic eyes. The power of IOL(flatK) would be inaccurate by -(0.47x+0.85), where x is the pre-refractive surgery myopic SE (SEQ(m)). Thus, without adjusting IOL(flatK), most patients would be left hyperopic. However, when IOL(flatK) is adjusted with this formula, it would not be statistically different from IOL(exact).

CONCLUSIONS

For IOL power selection in previously myopic patients, a predictive formula to calculate IOL power based only on the pre-refractive surgery SEQ(m) and current flattest keratometry readings was not statistically different from IOL(exact). The IOL(HisKs), which was also not statistically different from IOL(exact), requires pre-refractive surgery keratometry readings that are often not available to the cataract surgeon.

Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Keratorefractive procedures designed to decrease refractive errors have gained enormous popularity among ophthalmologists and patients. As the post-refractive surgery patient population ages, visually significant cataracts will develop. With advances in techniques for cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation, cataract surgery has evolved into a refractive surgical procedure as well as an operation to improve best corrected visual acuity. This raises expectations in terms of desired postoperative refractive status and uncorrected visual acuity. Although performing modern cataract surgery in post-refractive surgery eyes is technically no more complicated than operating on virgin eyes, the calculation of intraocular lens power for a desired refractive target can be challenging and complicated. This has become increasingly apparent as case reports of "refractive surprises" after cataract surgery appear in the literature more frequently.

RECENT FINDINGS

This paper reviews the current clinical experience with intraocular lens power determination after cataract surgery in post-keratorefractive patients, provides an overview of possible sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation in these patients, and analyzes methods to minimize intraocular lens power errors.

SUMMARY

The clinical and routine methods of intraocular lens power determination after keratorefractive surgery need to be modified to improve accuracy. Our knowledge of this subject is still evolving. Given the enormous impact of this problem on clinical practice, awareness of the shortcomings and suggested methods to improve accuracy can be valuable to clinicians.

Consideration of the posterior corneal curvature for assessment of corneal power after myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of a separate measurement of the anterior and posterior corneal surface to calculate the total refractive power of the cornea after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

METHODS

A total of 39 eyes of 21 patients (aged 33 +/- 9 years) were included in this prospective, non-randomized, comparative study. These involved 19 myopic corrections (- 3.5 +/- 1.6 dioptres) and 23 refractive corrections of myopic astigmatism (sphere: - 3.7 +/- 1.6 D, cylinder: - 1.2 +/- 0.4 D). All procedures were accomplished with the Keratom II). Coherent-Schwind excimer laser and the Moria Model One) microkeratome (150 micro m head) at the Medical Education Centre, La Trinidad, Caracas, Venezuela. Subjective refractometry, Bausch & Lomb) keratometry and Orbscan) slit-scanning corneal topography analysis were performed before and 3 months after LASIK. Corneal power was assessed directly using keratometry (K1) and Orbscan videokeratography (T1). Corneal power was calculated using the preoperative keratometric (K2, 'gold standard', clinical history method) or topographic power (T2, clinical history method) and spherical equivalent change. A composite value was derived from the Orbscan anterior and posterior surface power and central pachymetry (T3).

RESULTS

Three months postoperatively, corneal power ranged in a descending order from T1 (42.33 +/- 1.78 D), K1 (40.82 +/- 2.20 D), K2 (40.42 +/- 2.36 D), T2 (40.03 +/- 2.51 D) to T3 (38.78 +/- 2.23 D). On average, T1 exceeded the gold standard by 1.9 D and the gold standard exceeded T3 by 1.6 D. K2, T1, T2 and T3 correlated significantly with K1 (r = 0.975, p < 0.001; r = 0.909, p < 0.001; r = 0.963, p < 0.001; r = 0.853, p < 0.001, respectively). The differences T1-K2 (r = - 0.699, p < 0.001) and T3-K2 (r = - 0.499, p = 0.001) correlated highly inversely and K1-K2 correlated borderline inversely (r = - 0.325, p = 0.043) with the intended refractive correction.

CONCLUSION

After myopic LASIK, refractive corneal power is overestimated by direct keratometric and especially videokeratoscopic measurements. The higher the intended refractive correction, the greater is this error. A separate measurement of both refractive surfaces of the cornea tends to underestimate but may enhance accuracy of the total refractive corneal power if the history of the patient is unknown.

Changes in keratometric corneal power and refractive error after laser thermal keratoplasty

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of laser thermal keratoplasty (LTK) on corneal power and refractive error to develop a logical approach to calculating accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power for cataract surgery.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

METHODS

Laser thermal keratoplasty was performed in 27 eyes of 23 patients. Preoperatively and postoperatively, the refractive error was measured and the corneal power obtained by manual keratometry and topography. The changes in keratometric corneal power and refractive error after LTK were compared.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 15 women and 8 men was 45.0 years +/- 4.6 (SD) (range 43 to 61 years). The mean preoperative refractive error was +1.43 +/- 0.97 diopters (D) (range 0 to +3.63 D) at the spectacle plane and +1.46 +/- 1.01 D (range 0 to +3.79 D) at the corneal plane. The mean postoperative refractive error was -0.44 +/- 1.07 D (range -2.24 to +2.18 D) at the spectacle plane and -0.44 +/- 1.08 D (range -2.18 to +2.23 D) at the corneal plane. After surgery, corneal powers measured by manual keratometry were significantly smaller than those measured by topography (P<.001) and refractive error changes were significantly smaller than keratometric changes (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

After LTK, corneal power measured by manual keratometry was smaller than that measured by corneal topography and changes in corneal power measured by conventional keratometric instruments were greater than changes in refractive error. This difference should be considered in calculating IOL power in post-LTK eyes to prevent undesirable hyperopia after cataract surgery.

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.

Intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To analyze the results of phacoemulsification cataract surgery in eyes that had had refractive surgery and to compare the predictability of various methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

SETTING

Instituto de la Visión, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

METHODS

The study involved 7 cases that had phacoemulsification after radial keratotomy or laser in situ keratomileusis. The spherical equivalent (SE) and visual acuity were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the changes before cataract development. The IOL power calculated with conventional keratometry (CK), adjusted keratometry, the clinical history method (CHM), corneal topography (CT), and the contact lens method (CLM) was compared with the final refractive and keratometric results measured with the BackCalcs (Holladay(R) IOL Consultant Program, Holladay Consulting, Inc.) to assess the accuracy and predictability of each method.

RESULTS

The mean SE was -4.82 diopters (D) +/- 5.13 (SD) before phacoemulsification and +0.19 +/- 1.01 D after phacoemulsification, and the mean best corrected visual acuity was 0.39 +/- 0.07 (20/50) and 0.80 +/- 0.06 (20/25), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-phacoemulsification refraction in cases with previous refractive surgery appeared to be predictable when the appropriate calculation method was applied. When all the data were available, the CHM provided the best results. Adjusted keratometry and CT seemed to be more accurate than CK and the CLM.

Corneal power after refractive surgery for myopia: contact lens method

PURPOSE

To clarify the theoretical background of the rigid contact lens overrefraction (CLO) method to determine corneal power after corneal refractive surgery.

SETTING

University Eye Clinic, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.

METHODS

Using paraxial geometrical optics, the measurement situation for the contact lens method was analyzed and the definitions of corneal refractive power were reviewed. Based on the theoretical Gullstrand eye, model eyes were constructed, representing 1 emmetropic and 2 myopic eyes (primary refraction -5.21 diopters [D] and -10.25 D, respectively) before and after photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis. In these eyes, the application of the CLO was mathematically simulated using Gaussian thick-lens optics and commercial ray-tracing software.

RESULTS

The CLO method measured neither the equivalent (total) power nor the vertex (back) power of the cornea but rather the quantity 336/R(1C) (R(1C) = anterior corneal radius). Based on these results and the Gullstrand eye, new formulas are proposed to derive the equivalent power and vertex power of the cornea by the CLO method.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on whether intraocular lens calculation formulas are based on equivalent (total) corneal power or vertex corneal power, the respective new formulas for the CLO method should be applied in patients after corneal refractive surgery. An increase in prediction accuracy of the refractive outcome is expected.