Intraocular lens calculations after laser vision correction

BCLA CLEAR Presbyopia: Evaluation and diagnosis

It is important to be able to measure the range of clear focus in clinical practice to advise on presbyopia correction techniques and to optimise the correction power. Both subjective and objective techniques are necessary: subjective techniques (such as patient reported outcome questionnaires and defocus curves) assess the impact of presbyopia on a patient and how the combination of residual objective accommodation and their natural DoF work for them; objective techniques (such as autorefraction, corneal topography and lens imaging) allow the clinician to understand how well a technique is working optically and whether it is the right choice or how adjustments can be made to optimise performance. Techniques to assess visual performance and adverse effects must be carefully conducted to gain a reliable end-point, considering the target size, contrast and illumination. Objective techniques are generally more reliable, can help to explain unexpected subjective results and imaging can be a powerful communication tool with patients. A clear diagnosis, excluding factors such as binocular vision issues or digital eye strain that can also cause similar symptoms, is critical for the patient to understand and adapt to presbyopia. Some corrective options are more permanent, such as implanted inlays / intraocular lenses or laser refractive surgery, so the optics can be trialled with contact lenses in advance (including differences between the eyes) to better communicate with the patient how the optics will work for them so they can make an informed choice.

Cataract surgery following refractive surgery: Principles to achieve optical success and patient satisfaction

A growing number of patients with prior refractive surgery are now presenting for cataract surgery. Surgeons face a number of unique challenges in this patient population that tends to be highly motivated to retain or regain functional uncorrected acuity postoperatively. Primary challenges include recognition of the specific type of prior surgery, use of appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, matching IOL style with spherical aberration profile, the recognition of corneal imaging patterns that are and are not compatible with toric and/or presbyopia-correcting lens implantation, and surgical technique modifications, which are particularly relevant in eyes with prior radial keratotomy or phakic IOL implantation. Despite advancements in IOL power formulae, corneal imaging, and IOL options that have improved our ability to achieve targeted postoperative refractive outcomes, accuracy and predictability remain inferior to eyes that undergo cataract surgery without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Thus, preoperative evaluation of patients who will and will not be candidates for postoperative refractive surgical enhancements is also paramount. We provide an overview of the specific challenges in this population and offer evidence-based strategies and considerations for optimizing surgical outcomes.

Keratometry Agreement Between Two Swept-Source OCT Devices in Healthy and Post-refractive Surgery Eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the keratometry agreement between two swept-source devices for healthy and post-refractive surgery eyes and compare them.

METHODS

One hundred volunteers between 20 and 55 years of age were recruited for this study including both healthy and post-refractive surgery eyes. Three consecutive measurements of simulated keratometry (Sim K), posterior keratometry (PK), and total keratometry (TK) were obtained with the IOLMaster 700 and Anterion. The agreement was assessed through the Bland-Altman method. Limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated as mean difference ±1.96·SD and it represents the 95% of the differences between devices.

RESULTS

For both groups, Sim K measurements exhibited a mean difference close to 0 and within a range of ±0.30 and ±0.36 diopters (D) for the control and post-refractive surgery groups, respectively. Meanwhile, the IOLMaster 700 provided flatter PK values (0.30 D on average) for both groups. In general, the post-refractive surgery group exhibited slightly greater mean differences and wider 95% LoA than the control group for Sim K and PK. Steeper TK values were obtained by the IOLMaster in both groups (control = 0.50 D and post-refractive surgery = 0.75 D). TK differences between devices were significantly greater in the post-refractive surgery group (ranging from 0.38 to 1.14 D) compared to the control group (ranging from 0.15 to 0.85 D).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOLMaster 700 and Anterion are not interchangeable for TK measurements and eyes that had corneal refractive surgery even decreased the agreement between devices. Differences between devices for Sim K and PK measurements should be clinically judged, particularly in eyes with previous corneal surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):347-353.].

Intraoperative aberrometry compared to preoperative Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power selection in eyes with prior refractive surgery

To compare the predictive refractive accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry (ORA) to the preoperative Barrett True-K formula in the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with prior refractive surgery undergoing cataract surgery at the Loma Linda University Eye Institute, Loma Linda, California, USA. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with a history of post-myopic or hyperopic LASIK/PRK who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery between October 2016 and March 2020. Pre-operative measurements were performed utilizing the Barrett True-K formula. Intraoperative aberrometry (ORA) was used for aphakic refraction and IOL power calculation during surgery. Predictive refractive accuracy of the two methods was compared based on the difference between achieved and intended target spherical equivalent. A total of 97 eyes (69 patients) were included in the study. Of these, 81 eyes (83.5%) had previous myopic LASIK/PRK and 16 eyes (16.5%) had previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK. Median (MedAE)/mean (MAE) absolute prediction errors for preoperative as compared to intraoperative methods were 0.49 D/0.58 D compared to 0.42 D/0.51 D, respectively (P = 0.001/0.002). Over all, ORA led to a statistically significant lower median and mean absolute error compared to the Barrett True-K formula in post-refractive eyes. Percentage of eyes within ± 1.00 D of intended target refraction as predicted by the preoperative versus the intraoperative method was 82.3% and 89.6%, respectively (P = 0.04). Although ORA led to a statistically significant lower median absolute error compared to the Barrett True-K formula, the two methods are clinically comparable in predictive refractive accuracy in patients with prior refractive surgery.

Comparative analysis of predictability and accuracy of American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery online calculator with Haigis-L formula in post-myopic laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis refractive surgery eyes

Purpose:

The aim of this study was to compare the predictability and accuracy of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) online calculator with the Haigis-L formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post myopic laser-assisted in-situ keratomileuses (LASIK) eyes undergoing cataract surgery and also to analyze the postoperative refractive outcome among the ASCRS average, maximum and minimum values.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted on post myopic LASIK eyes which underwent cataract surgery between June 2017 and December 2019. IOL power was calculated using both Haigis-L & ASCRS methods. Implanted IOL power was based on the ASCRS method. The expected postoperative refraction for IOL power based on the Haigis-L formula was calculated and compared with the Spherical Equivalent (SE) obtained from the patient's actual refraction. Prediction error (PE) & Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was calculated. Intragroup analysis of ASCRS values was done.

Results:

Among the 41 eyes analyzed, pre-operative and post-operative mean best-corrected visual acuity was 0.58 ± 0.21 and 0.15 ± 0.26 logMAR, respectively. In the ASCRS method, 36 (87.8%) and 40 (97.6%) eyes had PE within ± 0.5D and ± 1.0 D, respectively, whereas, in the Haigis-L method, 29 (70.7%) eyes, and 38 (92.7%) eyes had PE within ± 0.5D and ± 1.0 D, respectively. Among the ASCRS subgroups, ASCRS average, maximum and minimum values had 83%, 80.6%, and 48.8% eyes with SE within ± 0.5D, respectively.

Conclusion:

ASCRS method can be considered as an equally efficient method of IOL power calculation as the Haigis-L method in eyes which have undergone post myopic LASIK refractive surgery. ASCRS maximum & average values gave better emmetropic results.

Comparative postoperative topography pattern recognition analysis using axial vs tangential curvature maps

PURPOSE

To determine prediction accuracy of patient refractive surgery status by novice reviewers based on topography pattern analysis using axial or tangential anterior curvature maps.

SETTING

Four U.S. academic centers.

DESIGN

Prospective case-control study.

METHODS

Image evaluation was performed by novice reviewers (n = 52) at 4 academic institutions. Participants were shown 60 total images from 30 eyes presenting for cataract surgery evaluation with known refractive surgery status, including 12 eyes imaged with Placido-based topography and 18 eyes imaged with Scheimpflug-based tomography. There were 12 eyes with myopic ablations, 12 eyes with hyperopic ablations, and 6 eyes with no previous refractive surgery performed. Each eye was shown in both axial and tangential curvature from either device, reviewed as a single image at a time, and masked to the map type (axial vs tangential).

RESULTS

For the 52 novice reviewers included, accuracy of pattern identification was 82.9% (517 of 624) for tangential vs 55.0% (343 of 624) for axial maps for eyes with myopic ablation (P < .00001), 90.9% (567 of 624) for tangential vs 58.3% (364 of 624) for axial maps for eyes with hyperopic ablation (P < .00001), and 15.4% (48 of 312) for tangential vs 62.8% (196 of 312) for axial maps for eyes with no ablation (P < .00001). There were no significant differences between Placido and Scheimpflug devices and no significant differences across groups based on year of training.

CONCLUSIONS

Tangential curvature maps yielded significantly better pattern recognition accuracy compared with axial maps after myopic and hyperopic corneal refractive surgery ablations for novice reviewers. Using tangential curvature maps, especially for challenging cases, should benefit post-LASIK intraocular lens (IOL) calculator selection and, thereby, improve IOL power calculation accuracy.

Refractive outcomes following cataract surgery in patients who have had myopic laser vision correction

Objective

Prediction errors are increased among patients presenting for cataract surgery post laser vision correction (LVC) as biometric relationships are altered. We investigated the prediction errors of five formulae among these patients.

Methods and analysis

The intended refractive error was calculated as a sphero-cylinder and as a spherical equivalent for analysis. For determining the difference between the intended and postoperative refractive error, data were transformed into components of Long's formalism, before changing into sphero-cylinder notation. These differences in refractive errors were compared between the five formulae and to that of a control group using a Kruskal-Wallis test. An F-test was used to compare the variances of the difference distributions.

Results

22 eyes post LVC and 19 control eyes were included for analysis. Comparing both groups, there were significant differences in the postoperative refractive error (p=0.038). The differences between the intended and postoperative refractive error were greater in post LVC eyes than control eyes (p=0.012), irrespective of the calculation method for the intended refractive error (p<0.01). The mean difference between the intended and postoperative refractive error was relatively small, but its variance was significantly greater among post LVC eyes than control eyes (p<0.01). Among post LVC eyes, there were no significant differences between the mean intended target refraction and between the intended and postoperative refractive error using five biometry formulae (p=0.76).

Conclusion

Biometry calculations were less precise for patients who had LVC than patients without LVC. No particular biometry formula appears to be superior among patients post LVC.