Clinically relevant differences in the selection of toric intraocular lens power in normal eyes: preoperative measurement vs intraoperative aberrometry

Intraoperative Aberrometry versus Preoperative Biometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To evaluate the published literature to compare intraoperative aberrometry (IA) with preoperative biometry-based formulas with respect to intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation accuracy for various clinical scenarios.

METHODS

Literature searches in the PubMed database conducted in August 2022, July 2023, and February 2024 identified 157, 18, and 6 citations, respectively. These were reviewed in abstract form, and 61 articles were selected for full-text review. Of these, 29 met the criteria for inclusion in this assessment. The panel methodologists assigned a level of evidence rating to each of the articles; 4 were rated level I, 19 were rated level II, and 6 were rated level III.

RESULTS

Intraoperative aberrometry performed better than traditional vergence formulas, including the Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T, and similarly to the Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF with respect to minimization of spherical equivalent (SE) refractive error. For toric IOLs, IA outperformed formulas that only considered anterior corneal astigmatism and was similar to formulas like the Barrett Toric Calculator (BTC), which empirically account for the contribution from the posterior cornea. In eyes with a history of corneal refractive surgery, IA performed similarly to the Barrett True-K and slightly better than other tested methods, including the Haigis-L, Shammas, and Wang-Koch-Maloney formulas.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative aberrometry corresponds well with modern vergence formulas, including the Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, BTC, and Barrett True-K. It has greater accuracy than traditional vergence-based IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with and without a history of corneal refractive surgery.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Prediction accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry compared with preoperative biometry formulae for intraocular lens power selection

OBJECTIVE

To compare the accuracy of intraoperative wavefront aberrometry to preoperative biometry formulae for predicting intraocular lens power.

DESIGN

Retrospective, consecutive case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Eyes undergoing cataract extraction with at least 1 month of follow-up after surgery at an ambulatory surgical centre in Toronto.

METHODS

Consecutive sample of 228 cataract extractions with monofocal, trifocal, or toric intraocular lens implantation from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019. The spherical equivalent was predicted preoperatively with Barrett Universal II, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), SRK/T, Holladay I, Holladay II, Haigis, and HofferQ using biometry measurements and intraoperatively with wavefront aberrometry. The primary outcomes were mean prediction error and proportion of eyes with a spherical equivalent within 0.5 D of the refractive target at postoperative month 1.

RESULTS

The analysis included 159 eyes with 52% females and a mean age of 69.4 years. Formulae with the lowest mean prediction error were Hill-RBF (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), Barrett Universal II (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), intraoperative aberrometry (0.32 D ± 0.02 D), SRK/T (0.33 D ± 0.02 D), Holladay II (0.34 D ± 0.03 D), Holladay I (0.35 D ± 0.02 D), Haigis (0.37 D ± 0.02 D), and HofferQ (0.42 D ± 0.02 D). There were no statistically significant differences between intraoperative aberrometry and the preoperative formulae. Formulae with the highest proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of the refractive target were intraoperative aberrometry (82%), Barrett Universal II (81%), Hill-RBF (80%), SRK/T (77%), Holladay II (76%), Holladay I (75%), Haigis (71%), and HofferQ (70%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative aberrometry and modern preoperative biometry formulae are equally effective at reaching the refractive target. In normal eyes, intraoperative aberrometry does not appear to provide any additional benefit to modern prediction formulae.

Intraoperative aberrometry: an update on applications and outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is now a large body of experience with intraoperative aberrometry. This review aims to synthesize available data regarding intraoperative aberrometry applications and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) System utilizes Talbot-moiré interferometry and is the only commercially available intraoperative aberrometry device. There are few studies that include all-comers undergoing intraoperative aberrometry-assisted cataract surgery, as most studies examine routine patients only or atypical eyes only. In non-post-refractive cases, studies have consistently shown a small but statistically significant benefit in spherical equivalent refractive outcome for intraoperative aberrometry versus preoperative calculations. In studies examining axial length extremes, most studies have shown intraoperative aberrometry to perform similarly to preoperative calculations. Amongst post-refractive cases, post-myopic ablation cases appear to benefit the most from intraoperative aberrometry. For toric intraocular lenses (IOLs), intraoperative aberrometry may be used for refining IOL power (toricity and spherical equivalent) and alignment, and most studies show intraoperative aberrometry to achieve low postoperative residual astigmatism.

SUMMARY

Intraoperative aberrometry can be utilized as an adjunct to preoperative planning and surgeon's judgment to optimize cataract surgery refractive outcomes. Non-post-refractive cases, post-myopic ablation eyes, and toric intraocular lenses may have the greatest demonstrated benefit in intraoperative aberrometry studies to date, but other eyes may also benefit from intraoperative aberrometry use.

The Use of Intraoperative Aberrometry in Normal Eyes: An Analysis of Intraocular Lens Selection in Scenarios of Disagreement

PURPOSE

To compare prediction error outcomes between the Optiwave Refractive Analysis System (ORA) (Alcon Laboratories, Inc) and two modern intraocular lens (IOL) formulas (Hill-RBF2.0 [HRBF] and Barrett Universal II [BUII]), and further analyze IOL selection in scenarios of disagreement between methods.

METHODS

Patients with no previous history of corneal refractive surgery who underwent cataract extraction and had intraoperative aberrometry measurements between October 2016 and December 2019 were analyzed. The prediction error for the ORA, HRBF, and BUII were calculated based on the postoperative manifest refraction. Further analysis was performed evaluating prediction error for scenarios of disagreement between the three methods.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 281 eyes were included. The mean absolute prediction errors were 0.28 diopters (D) (ORA), 0.31 D (HRBF), and 0.33 D (BUII) (P < .05). In instances when the IOL recommended by the ORA was in disagreement with what was selected preoperatively, there was no benefit when the lens recommended by the ORA was selected based on anecdotal experience. When further analyzing these instances of disagreement, selecting the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power results in improved refractive outcomes: the ORA resulted in more eyes within ±0.25 diopters (D) of predicted spherical error (65% ORA, 37% HRBF, 32% BUII; P = .004) and fewer hyperopic surprises (5% ORA, 15% HRBF, 24% BUII; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

In normal eyes without previous corneal refractive surgery, intraoperative aberrometry is not different from to two modern preoperative IOL formulas. Placing the ORA-recommended lens when it is higher in power than that selected preoperatively results in better refractive outcomes. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(5):304-309.].

Astigmatism Management with Astigmatism-Correcting Intraocular Lens Using Two Toric Calculators - A Comparative Case Series

Background

To compare refractive outcomes after phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation using two different toric calculators for initial astigmatism assessment in a real-world setting.

Methods

This was a retrospective, comparative, interventional case series. Patients over 30-year-old who underwent phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation (AcrySof^® Toric IOL) by the same surgeon between 2017 and 2018 were included. Eyes with irregular astigmatism, previous corneal refractive surgery, intraocular surgery, corneal pathology, macular pathology and pupil abnormalities were excluded. IOL toricity was determined by using a calculator provided by the AcrySof Toric calculator before 2018 and Barrett Toric Calculator after 2018. Patient demographics, corneal topography, vector and preoperative and postoperative refraction were collected and analyzed at three months postoperative.

Results

Thirty-two eyes of 32 patients were included in the final analysis. 0.1D for surgically induced astigmatism was used. Group 1 included 14 eyes assessed with the original (AcrySof) toric IOL calculator, and group 2 included 18 eyes assessed with the Barrett toric IOL calculator. In group 1, postoperative astigmatism less than −1.00D, −0.75 D, and −0.5D was achieved in 88.2%, 76.1% and 53.7% of eyes, respectively, while, in group 2, 89% eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.5D and all eyes achieved postoperative residual astigmatism less than 0.75D. The proportion of patients with lower postoperative astigmatism was significantly higher in Group 2 (p< 0.05 by chi-square test), a pattern that still held when we divided patients into multiple groups. Vector analysis with the Alpins methods also supported better outcomes in the Barrett group (0.71 D vs 0.35 D).

Conclusion

The Barrett Toric calculator resulted in better results in the prediction of residual astigmatism than original (AcrySof) toric calculators.

Refractive enhancements for residual refractive error after cataract surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in cataract surgery have allowed surgeons to achieve superior refractive outcomes but have also led to higher patient expectations. Despite ever-evolving technology, residual refractive errors still occur. Postcataract refractive enhancements may be required to deliver satisfactory visual outcomes. This review aims to discuss the potential causes of residual refractive errors and the various enhancement modalities to correct them.

RECENT FINDINGS

A thorough preoperative workup to detect and address underlying pathologic causes of impaired vision should be performed prior to enhancement or corrective procedures. Corneal-based procedures are the safest and most accurate methods of correcting mild cases of residual refractive error. Hyperopic, high myopic, and high astigmatic errors are best managed with lens-based enhancements. Piggyback intraocular lenses (IOLs) are safer and more effective compared with IOL exchange. Toric IOL rotation and IOL exchange are ideally performed in the early postoperative period.

SUMMARY

A multitude of options exist for effective correction of residual refractive errors. The choice on how to best manage these patients depends on many factors such as the cause of refractive error, type of IOL used, ocular comorbidities, and patient preference.

Clinical evaluation of toric intraocular lens implantation based on iTrace wavefront keratometric astigmatism

Background

Currently, there is no standard technique for determining corneal astigmatism. The iTrace wavefront aberrometry of cornea calculated steep power and axis based on the best Zernike mathematical fit from all topo data within 4 mm circle. It was supposed to be more accurate than iTrace simulated keratometry which was calculated based on only 4 points on the circle of 3 mm. This aim of this study was to evaluate visual outcomes and rotational stability after toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation using the wavefront aberrometry of the cornea with iTrace.

Setting: Single site in China, Shanxi Eye Hospital, Shanxi, China.

Design: Prospective case series.

Methods

The study included 85 eyes of 63 patients undergoing phacoemulsification and toric IOL implantation. The IOL power and cylinders were chosen with the help of the iTrace toric planning program using wavefront keratometric astigmatism. Astigmatic changes were assessed using Alpins vector method over a 3-month follow-up period.

Results

Preoperative mean corneal topographic astigmatism was 1.91 diopters (D) ± 0.69 (standard deviation). Postoperative mean refractive astigmatism decreased significantly to 0.48 D ± 0.34. Surgical induced astigmatism was 1.73 D ± 0.77 and the mean correction index was 0.89 ± 0.22, showing a slight undercorrection. The proportion of astigmatism ≤0.50 D increased from 0 to 71.8% postoperatively.

Conclusions

This is the first study on evaluation of clinical outcomes of toric IOL implantation in corneal astigmatism patients using iTrace wavefront keratometric readings. The findings show that use of iTrace built-in toric calculator is safe and effective for planning toric IOL surgery for wavefront keratometric astigmatism.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94956424, Retrospectively registered (Date of registration: 05 February 2020).