Prediction accuracy of IOL calculation formulas using the ASCRS online calculator for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis

The Preoperative Factors for the Undercorrection of Myopia in an Extend Depth-of-Focus Intraocular Lens: A Case-Control Study

We aim to investigate the potential risk factors for undercorrection in those who have received extend depth-of-focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. A retrospective case-control study was conducted in which patients who had received one type of EDOF IOL implantation were included. The patients were divided into the residual group and non-residual group according to the final postoperative sphere power. The preoperative data include the refractive, topographic, endothelial, and biometric parameters obtained. A generalized linear model was generated to yield the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each parameter of the residual myopia. One month postoperatively, the UDVA was better in the non-residual group than in the residual group (p = 0.010), and the final SE was significantly higher in the residual group than in the non-residual group (p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the high preoperative cycloplegia sphere power, higher TCRP, higher corneal cylinder power, and longer AXL significantly correlated to the presence of postoperative residual myopia (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, the higher preoperative cycloplegia sphere power, higher TCRP, higher corneal cylinder power, longer AXL, larger ACD, and larger WTW were significantly associated with postoperative residual myopia in the high-myopia population (all p < 0.001), while the higher preoperative cycloplegia sphere power, higher TCRP, and longer AXL were related to postoperative residual myopia in the low-myopia population (all p < 0.05). In conclusion, high preoperative myopia and corneal refractive power correlate to high risk of residual myopia after EDOF IOL implantation, especially in the high-myopia population.

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas.

RESULTS

Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas (P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and enhance IOL power calculation for this patient group.

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.

Clinical Outcomes with Extended Depth of Focus Intraocular Lenses in Cases in Which Multifocal Lenses Are Not Primarily Recommended

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the visual and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) intraocular lens (IOL) who were not primarily good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data from 30 eyes (23 patients) undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of one of two EDOF IOLs (follow-up: 37.9 ± 16.2 months) and prospective observational study including 106 eyes (78 patients) implanted with one of 6 different EDOF models (follow-up: 8.0 ± 7.7 months). Patients recruited had one of the following conditions: monofocal IOL implanted in the fellow eye, previous corneal refractive surgery, mild and nonprogressive maculopathy or glaucoma, age > 75 years, amblyopia, or previous vitrectomy.

Results

In the retrospective phase, significant improvements were found in uncorrected distance (UDVA), corrected distance (CDVA), and corrected near visual acuity (CNVA) (p ≤ 0.013), with a nonsignificant trend to improvement in uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA). A total of 90% of patients were completely to moderately satisfied with the outcome achieved. In the prospective phase, significant improvements were found in UDVA, CDVA, UNVA, and CNVA (p ≤ 0.032), with a total of 85.5% of patients being completely to moderately satisfied (dissatisfaction 3.3%). In both phases, extreme difficulties were only reported by a limited percentage of patients for performing some near vision activities.

Conclusions

EDOF IOLs seem to be a viable option for providing an efficient visual rehabilitation with good levels of patient satisfaction and spectacle independence associated in patients that are not primarily good candidates for multifocal IOL implantation.

The influence of corneal ablation patterns on prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of corneal ablation patterns on the prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.

Methods

Eighty-three post-myopic-LASIK eyes of 83 patients that underwent uneventful cataract surgery were retrospectively included. Predicted postoperative spherical equivalence (SE) was calculated for the implanted lens using the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formula. Prediction error at one month postsurgery was calculated as actual SE minus predicted SE. For each eye, area and decentration of the ablation zone was measured using the tangential curvature map. The associations between prediction errors and corneal ablation patterns were investigated.

Results

The mean prediction error was − 0.83 ± 1.00 D with the Haigis-L formula and − 1.00 ± 0.99 D with the Barrett True-K formula. Prediction error was positively correlated with keratometry (K) value and negatively correlated with ablation zone area using either formula, and negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone using the Barrett True-K formula (all P < 0.05). In the K < 37.08 D group, prediction error was negatively correlated with decentration of the ablation zone with both formulas (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that with the Haigis-L formula, prediction error was associated with axial length (AL), K value and decentration, and with the Barrett True-K formula, prediction error was associated with AL and decentration (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion

A flatter cornea, larger corneal ablation zone and greater decentration will lead to more myopic prediction error after cataract surgery in post-myopic-LASIK eyes.

Intraocular Lens Calculation Using 8 Formulas in Silicone Oil-Filled Eyes Undergoing Silicone Oil Removal and Phacoemulsification After Retinal Detachment

PURPOSE

To evaluate formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in silicone oil (SO)-filled eyes.

DESIGN

Retrospective, consecutive case series.

METHODS

We conducted our study at the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany, and included SO-filled eyes that received SO removal combined with phacoemulsification and IOL implantation. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec). To evaluate the measurements, we compared the mean prediction error, and mean and median absolute prediction error of 8 different formulas.

RESULTS

A total of 90 eyes matched our inclusion criteria. The median absolute error was lowest in the Barrett Universal II formula (0.43 diopters [D] ± 0.75) followed by Kane (0.44 D ± 0.75), Hill-radial basis function (0.47 D ± 0.74), Holladay II (0.47 D ± 0.77), Sanders Retzlaff Kraff/theoretical (0.51 D ± 0.74), Holladay I (0.51 D ± 0.76), and Haigis and Hoffer Q (0.52 D ± 0.74 each). Regarding eyes within ±0.5 D Barrett Universal II (57.8%, 52 eyes) performed best, again followed by Kane (56.7%, 51 eyes) and Hill-radial basis function (54.4%, 49 eyes).

CONCLUSION

Using modern formulas for IOL calculation in oil-filled eyes improves predictability but still not as good as in unoperated eyes. This issue is created by the change in refractive index due to the SO fill and therefore a lower precision of axial length measurement and effective lens position prediction.

Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes with Prior Laser Vision Correction (LVC) - A Review

BACKGROUND

An intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes that have undergone laser vision correction (LVC) poses a significant clinical issue in regards to both patient expectation and accuracy. This review aims to describe the pitfalls of IOL power calculation after LVC and give an overview of the current methods of IOL power calculation after LVC.

REVIEW

Problems after LVC derive from the measurement of anterior corneal radii, central corneal thickness, asphericity, and the predicted effective lens position. A central issue is that most conventional 3rd generation formulas estimate lens position amongst other parameters on keratometry, which is altered in post-LVC eyes.

CONCLUSION

An IOL power calculation results in eyes with prior LVC that are notably impaired in eyes without prior surgery. Effective corneal power including anterior corneal curvature, posterior corneal curvature, CCT (central corneal thickness), and asphericity is essential. Total keratometry in combination with the Barrett True-K, EVO (emmetropia verifiying optical formula), or Haigis formula is relatively uncomplicated and seems to provide good results, as does the Barrett True-K formula with anterior K values. The ASCRS ( American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery) calculator combines results of various formulae and averages results, which allows a direct comparison between the different methods. Tomography-based raytracing and the Kane and the Castrop formulae need to be evaluated by future studies.

Prediction accuracy of No History IOL formulas for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus IOL after myopic corneal refractive surgery

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods for extended depth-of-focus (EDOF) IOLs in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery lacking historical data.

Setting

Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, and Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan, China.

Design

Retrospective case series.

Methods

Patients with ALs >= 25.0 mm and a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of EDOF IOLs were enrolled. A comparison was performed of the accuracy of 10 IOL methods lacking historical data, including Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, Potvin-Hill, "Average", 'minimum" and "maximum" IOL power on the ASCRS online post-refractive IOL calculator; Triple-S formula; and SToP formulas based on Holladay1 and SRK/T. IOL power was calculated with the abovementioned methods in 2 groups according to AL (Group1: 25.0 mm <= AL < 28.0 mm and Group2: AL >= 28.0 mm).

Results

Sixty-four eyes were included. Excellent outcomes were achieved with the "Minimum", Barrett TKNH, SToP (SRK/T) and Triple-S in the whole sample and subgroups, which led to similar median absolute error, mean absolute error, and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within +/- 0.5 D. In the whole sample, the Haigis-L and "Maximum" had a significantly higher absolute error than "Minimum", SToP (SRK/T) and Barrett TKNH. The "Maximum" also had a significantly lower percentage of eyes within +/- 0.5 D than the Barrett TKNH, and SToP (SRK/T) (15.6% vs 50% and 51.5%, all P<0.05 with Bonferroni correction).

Conclusions

No-history IOL formulas in predicting the EDOF IOL power in post-myopic refractive eyes remain challenging. The Barrett TKNH, Triple-S, "Minimum" and SToP (SRK/T) achieved the best accuracy when AL >= 25.0 mm, while the Barrett TKNH and SToP (SRK/T) were recommended when AL >= 28.0mm.

Influence of Posterior Corneal Asphericity on Refractive Error of SRK-T and Barrett Formulas for Lucidis IOL

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of posterior corneal asphericity on the refractive error using SRK-T and Barrett formulas for the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for Lucidis Extended Depth of Focus (EDOF) IOL.

SETTING

This study was carried out at a tertiary ophthalmology center in Geneva, Switzerland.

DESIGN

A retrospective study. Medical records from all enrolled patients were analyzed and the following information was extracted retrospectively, over 1 month following surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 75 eyes that underwent cataract surgery and were implanted with a Lucidis EDOF IOL. We measured the posterior corneal asphericity (Q value), axial length (AL), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) and then calculated the IOL power using SRK-T and Barrett formulas.

RESULTS

Seventy-five eyes were included, all of which had 1-month postoperative data. In the cohort, 32 eyes were from females (43%) and 43 from males (57%). The mean age of the study population was 73 ± 8.8 years. The mean AL was 23.5 ± 0.98 and the mean ACD was 3.13 ± 0.3. The mean posterior Q value was - 0.35 ± 0.2. In a regression analysis, we found a statistically significant relationship between the error in refraction prediction and the posterior Q value, irrespective of the formula used. The relationship between posterior corneal asphericity and the refraction prediction error was stronger for the Barrett II Universal formula than for the SRK-T formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior corneal asphericity was correlated with the refractive error of calculation of both SRK-T and Barrett formulas, with a stronger correlation to the latter formula.

Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas according to axial length after myopic corneal laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the predictive accuracy of 4 no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas in eyes with prior myopic excimer laser surgery, classified in 4 groups according to their axial length (AL), and investigate the relationship between AL and predictive accuracy.

SETTING

Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, Republic of Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

IOL power was calculated with the Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, and Triple-S formulas in 4 groups classified according to AL. Primary outcomes were the median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 diopter (D).

RESULTS

This study included 107 eyes of 107 patients. The Barrett True-K had the lowest MedAE when AL was <26.0 mm (0.30 D) and between 26.0 and 28.0 mm (0.54 D); in these subgroups, it had the highest percentages with a PE within ±0.50 D (71.4% and 46.2%). For AL between 28.0 and 30.0 mm, the Triple-S method showed the lowest MedAE (0.43 D) and highest percentage with a PE within ±0.50 D (58.3%). For AL ≥30.0 mm, the Shammas-PL formula produced the lowest MedAE (0.41 D) and highest percentage with a PE within ±0.50 D (58.3%). The Barrett True-K was the only formula with a correlation between AL and PE (r = -0.219/P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive accuracy of no-history IOL formulas depends on the AL. The Barrett True-K had the highest accuracy when AL was < 28.0 mm and the Triple-S when it ranged from 28.0 mm to 30.0 mm, whereas the Shammas-PL was more accurate when AL was ≥30.0 mm.

Ray-tracing Calculation Using Scheimpflug Tomography of Diffractive Extended Depth of Focus IOLs Following Myopic LASIK

PURPOSE

To evaluate a ray-tracing formula for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation of diffractive extended depth of focus IOLs after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) compared to formulas from an established online calculator.

METHODS

This retrospective, consecutive case series included patients after cataract surgery with implantation of an extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL (AT LARA, Carl Zeiss Meditec; Symfony, Johnson & Johnson) and a history of myopic LASIK. Preoperative assessments included biometry (IOLMaster; Carl Zeiss Meditec) and corneal tomography, including true net power (TNP) (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). To evaluate the measurements, the simulated keratometry values (SimK) were compared to the TNP. Regarding IOL calculation, the mean prediction error, mean and median absolute prediction error (MAE and MedAE), and number of eyes within ±0.50, ±1.00, and ±2.00 diopters (D) from the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Barrett True K No History formulas to the Potvin-Hill and Haigis with TNP (Pentacam) formulas were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-six eyes matched the inclusion criteria with a mean spherical equivalent of -6.26 ± 3.25 diopters (D) preoperatively and -0.79 ± 0.75 D postoperatively. The mean difference from SimK and TNP was significantly different from zero (P < .001; -1.24 ± 0.81 D). The best performing formulas by MedAE were the Potvin-Hill and Barrett True K No History (0.39 ± 0.78 and 0.64 ± 1.00 D). The formula with the most eyes within ±0.50 D was the Potvin-Hill (64%), followed by the Barrett True K No History (44%). For MAE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D, the Potvin-Hill formula was significantly better than the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Haigis-TNP formulas (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Calculation of IOLs in patients who had LASIK remains less predicable than calculations for virgin eyes. Using ray-tracing to calculate diffractive EDOF IOLs after myopic LASIK, the Potvin-Hill formula outperformed established formulas in terms of the percentage within target refraction and the MAE. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(4):231-239.].