Toric intraocular lens power calculation in cataract patients with keratoconus

Accuracy of intraocular lens power formulas in eyes with keratoconus: Multi-center study in Japan

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas, namely, SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane formula, and Kane formula for keratoconus, for cataract with keratoconus in Japanese eyes.

SETTING

Five surgical sites in Japan.

DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

METHODS

Eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery were included. Postoperative refraction was compared with the prediction by the formulas. Visual acuity, manifest spherical equivalent, prediction error (PE), and mean absolute errors (MAEs) were determined 1 month postoperatively. The PE within 0.50 diopter (D), 1.00 D, and 2.00 D were compared between IOL formulas. Subgroup analysis based on the steepest keratometry (stage 1, ≤ 48 D; stage 2, > 48 D and ≤ 53 D; and stage 3, > 53 D) was performed. The relationship between PE and preoperative biometric data were assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty eyes were included. The MAE of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane keratoconus, and Kane formulas were significantly lower than that of Haigis. A statistically significant difference in the prediction accuracy within ± 0.50 D was found between Kane keratoconus and Haigis. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, SRK/T, and Kane within ± 1.00 D was statistically significant compared with that of Haigis. In stage 3, the Barrett True-K for keratoconus had a significantly lower MAE than SRK/T and Haigis.

CONCLUSION

Keratoconus-specific formulas were more accurate than existing formulas in Japanese eyes. The Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus had higher prediction accuracy in severe keratoconus.

Current concepts in the management of cataract with keratoconus

This review analyzed all pertinent articles on keratoconus (KCN) and cataract surgery. It covers preoperative planning, intraoperative considerations, and postoperative management, with the aim of providing a simplified overview of treating such patients. Preoperatively, the use of corneal cross-linking, intrastromal corneal ring segments, and topo-guided corneal treatments can help stabilize the cornea and improve the accuracy of biometric measurements. It is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of traditional techniques such as penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, as well as newer stromal augmentation techniques, to choose the most appropriate surgical approach. Obtaining reliable measurements can be difficult, especially in the advanced stages of the disease. The choice between toric and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) should be carefully evaluated. Monofocal IOLs are a better choice in patients with advanced disease, and toric lenses can be used in mild and stable KCN. Intraoperatively, the use of a rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens can overcome the challenge of image distortion and loss of visual perspective. Postoperatively, patients may need updated RGP or scleral lenses to correct the corneal irregular astigmatism. A thorough preoperative planning is crucial for good surgical outcomes, and patients need to be informed regarding potential postoperative surprises. In conclusion, managing cataracts in KCN patients presents a range of challenges, and a comprehensive approach is essential to achieve favorable surgical outcomes.

Differences Between Simulated Keratometry and Total Corneal Power in Eyes With Keratoconus and a Formula to Improve IOL Power Calculation Results

PURPOSE

To compare simulated keratometry (SimK) and total corneal power (TCP) in keratoconic eyes, to determine whether the differences are systematic and predictable and to evaluate an adjusted TCP-based formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

In a consecutive series of keratoconic eyes, measurements of SimK, TCP, posterior keratometry, and anterior and posterior corneal asphericities (Q-values) were retrospectively collected. The difference between SimK and TCP was linearly correlated to the biometric parameters. In a separate sample of keratoconic eyes that had undergone cataract surgery, IOL power was calculated with the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T formulas using the SimK and an adjusted TCP power. The respective prediction errors were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 382 keratoconic eyes (271 patients) were enrolled. An increasing overestimation of SimK by TCP was detected from stage I to III, with a significant correlation between the SimK and TCP difference and SimK in the whole sample (P < .0001, r2 = 0.1322). Approximately 7% of cases presented an underestimation of SimK by TCP. IOL power calculation with the adjusted TCP improved outcomes, achieving a maximum of 80% of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 diopters with the Hoffer QST, Holladay 1, and Kane formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SimK overestimated TCP. Such a difference could not be predicted by any variable. The proposed TCP-adjustment formula (TCPadj = TCP + 0.56 diopters) in keratoconic eyes for IOL power calculation might be valuable for improving refractive outcomes. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(4):e253-e259.].

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

PURPOSE

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

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Factors Predictive of Refractive Error After Toric Lens Implantation

Purpose

To identify factors related to suboptimal refractive outcomes after toric intraocular lens implantation.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective case-control chart review of 446 eyes with toric lens insertion by the same surgeon at a university hospital from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Pre-operative exam findings, biometry, and one month and three month post-operative vision and refraction were noted. Reviewed charts were considered cases if uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was worse than 20/40, spherical equivalent (SE) >1 diopter (D) off target, or cylinder >1 D off target.

Results

Overall, 93.7% (n = 343) of eyes achieved UDVA of 20/40 or better, 92.7% (n = 306) were within 1 D of target SE, and 90.9% (n = 300) were within 1 D of target cylinder. UDVA cases had more eyes with prior LASIK (21.7% vs 7.0%, p = 0.01) and keratoconus (8.7% vs 0.6%, p < 0.001) than controls. More SE cases had prior radial keratotomy (RK) (8.3% vs 0%, p < 0.001) and keratoconus (12.5% vs 0%, p < 0.001) than controls. More cylinder cases had prior LASIK (30.0% vs 8.7%, p < 0.001) and higher mean astigmatism (2.3 vs 1.5 D, p = 0.02) than controls. More cases in all three analyses had higher toric cylinder power (T5-T9) than controls. Age, sex, eye laterality, axial length, anterior chamber depth, lens power, dry eye, anterior basement membrane dystrophy, and Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy differences were not significant.

Conclusion

Prior LASIK or RK, keratoconus, and higher astigmatism may increase the chance of a suboptimal outcome.

Visual Outcomes of Cataract Surgery in Patients With Keratoconus Using Toric and Non-toric Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy and outcomes of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery with toric and non-toric IOLs.

METHODS

This was a consecutive retrospective case series study including patients from the Cornea Service at the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, from 2000 to 2020. Keratoconus was diagnosed based on corneal topography and clinician opinion. Patients who underwent topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy, intracorneal ring segments implantation, or corneal transplant were excluded. The manifest spherical equivalent, prediction errors, and median absolute errors were calculated. Descriptive statistics were expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

RESULTS

There were 160 eyes from 101 patients; 136 eyes received non-toric lenses and 24 eyes received toric lenses. Most patients had mild disease (< 48.00 diopters [D]) when stratified by steep keratometry values. Patients with severe disease (> 53.00 D) were significantly more hyperopic following surgery (P < .05). The Barrett Universal II (0.26 D, inter-quartile range [IQR] = 0.4), Holladay 2 (0.31, IQR = 1.2), and SRK/T (0.42, IQR = 0.86) formulas had the lowest median absolute error. The postoperative prediction error following toric lens insertion was not significantly different than following non-toric lens insertion, and the mean absolute astigmatism was significantly reduced with toric lenses.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett Universal II, Holladay 2, and SRK/T were the most accurate IOL power calculation formulas in patients with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery. Hyperopic surprise was increased in severe keratoconus. Toric IOLs may be considered in patients with mild keratoconus. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(5):319-325.].