Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis or Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia

Accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens power after small-incision lenticule extraction

Purpose

The study aimed to assess the accuracy of the FY-L formula in calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE).

Methods

For the post-SMILE IOL calculation of the same eye, the IOL power targeting the pre-SMILE eyes' lowest myopic refractive error was used. The FY-L formula, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical Formula (EVO-L), the Barrett True-K no history, and the Shammas-L, respectively, were used to calculate the predicted refractive error of target IOL power. A comparison was made between the change in spherical equivalent induced by SMILE (SMILE-Dif) and the variance between IOL-Dif (IOL-Induced Refractive Error) before and after SMILE. The prediction error (PE) was defined as SMILE-Dif minus IOL-Dif. The proportion of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D, the numerical and absolute prediction errors (PEs and AEs), and the median absolute error (MedAE) were compared.

Results

In total, 80 eyes from 42 patients who underwent SMILE were included in the study. The FY-L formula generated the sample's lowest mean PE (0.06 ± 0.76 D), MAE (0.58 ± 0.50 D), and MedAE (0.47 D), respectively. The PEs in ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D comprised 28.8%, 46.3%, 70.0%, and 87.5%, respectively, for the FY-L formula. Compared to other formulas, the FY-L formula produced the highest value with PEs for the percentage of eyes in ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the FY-L formula provides satisfactory outcomes in estimating the IOL power in the eyes after SMILE.

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.

An Advanced Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA) in post refractive surgery IOL power calculation with unknown preoperative parameters

PURPOSE

To test a new method to calculate the Intraocular Lens (IOL) power, that combines R Factor and ALxK methods, that we called Advance Lens Measurement Approach (ALMA).

DESIGN

Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study.

SETTING

Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Salerno, Italy.

METHODS

Ninety one eyes of 91 patients previously treated with Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) or Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) that underwent phacoemulsification and IOL implantation in the capsular bag were analyzed. For 68 eyes it was possible to zero out the Mean Errors (ME) for each formula and for selected IOL models, in order to eliminate the bias of the lens factor (A-Costant). Main outcome, measured in this study, was the median absolute error (MedAE) of the refraction prediction.

RESULTS

In the sample with ME zeroed (68 eyes) both R Factor and ALxK methods resulted in MedAE of 0.67 D. For R Factor 33 eyes (48.53%) reported a refractive error <0.5D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1D, For ALxK method, 32 eyes (47.06%) reported a refractive error <0.5 D, and 53 eyes (77.94%) reported a refractive error <1 D. ALMA method, reported a MedAE of 0.55 D, and an higher number of patients with a refractive error <0.5 D (35 eyes, 51.47%), and with a refractive error <1 D (54 eyes, 79.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results obtained from this study, ALMA method can improve R Factor and ALxK methods. This improvement is confirmed both by zeroing the mean error and without zeroing it.

Disruptive Innovation and Refractive IOLs: How the Game Will Change With Adjustable IOLs

The light-adjustable lens is the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved product from an entirely new category of intraocular lenses (IOLs). The 3-piece foldable silicone light-adjustable lens is implanted through a small incision after phacoemulsification. A slit-lamp-based digital light delivery device is used to adjust and then lock-in the IOL power during the first postoperative month. Up to 4.5 diopters (D) of cylindrical or spherical adjustment can be achieved. This should offer significant advantages in difficult IOL power calculation cases, such as postrefractive eyes. In addition to achieving better refractive accuracy, an adjustable IOL will now allow patients to test and elect a different refractive target postoperatively. This paradigm shift will change how cataract patients choose their refractive objectives, and how ophthalmologists will be able to achieve them. For example, adjustable IOLs may increase the popularity of pseudophakic monovision and bilateral same-day sequential surgery. For those electing adjustable IOL, preoperative patient counseling will change and certain pre- and intraoperative technologies, such as intraoperative aberrometry and digital astigmatic axis marking, would become superfluous.

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.