Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Following Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: New Options Using a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes After Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery and Radial Keratotomy: Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of formulas for calculating intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery or radial keratotomy.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Data Base of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for retrospective and prospective clinical studies published from January 1, 2012, to August 24, 2022. The outcome measurement was the percentage of eyes with a predicted error within the target refractive range (±0.50 diopter [D] or ±1.00 D).

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis includes 24 studies of 1172 eyes after myopic refractive surgery that use 12 formulas for intraocular lens power calculation. (1) A network meta-analysis showed that Barrett true-K no history, the optical coherence tomography (OCT) formula, and the Masket formula had a significantly higher percent of eyes within ±0.50 D of the goal than the Haigis-L formula, whereas the Wang-Koch-Maloney formula showed the poor predictability. Using an error criterion of within ±1.00 D, the same 3 formulas performed slightly better than the Haigis-L formula. Based on performance using both prediction error criteria, the Barrett true-K no history formula, OCT formula, and Masket formula showed the highest probability of ranking as the top 3 among the 12 methods. (2) A direct meta-analysis with a subset of 4 studies and 5 formulas indicated that formulas did not differ in percent success for either the ±0.5 D or ±1.0 D error range in eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The OCT, Masket, and Barrett true-K no history formulas are more accurate for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, whereas no significant difference was found among the formulas for eyes that had undergone radial keratotomy.

Accuracy of the PEARL-DGS Formula for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Post-Myopic Laser Refractive Corneal Surgery Eyes

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of the PEARL-DGS formula for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic laser refractive corneal surgery eyes.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

A total of 139 eyes of 139 patients (mean axial length: 27.4 ± 2.1 mm) who had prior myopic laser refractive corneal surgery and subsequent cataract surgery using Tecnis ZCB00 from March 2018 to February 2023 were included. Refractive outcomes of 5 formulas (Barrett True K, Haigis-L, Hoffer-QST, PEARL-DGS, and Shammas-PL) were evaluated. Prediction error was defined as the difference between the measured and predicted postoperative refractive spherical equivalent using the IOL power actually implanted. Mean prediction error (MPE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), and mean absolute prediction error were calculated.

RESULTS

Without constant optimization, the PEARL-DGS resulted in a MPE of +0.05 ± 0.65 diopters (D), whereas the other formulas resulted in myopic shifts. The MedAEs of the formulas were 0.39, 0.53, 0.65, 0.85, and 1.11 D for the PEARL-DGS, Hoffer-QST, Barrett True K, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L, respectively, in order of magnitude (P < .05). With constant optimization, there were no statistically significant differences in the MedAEs among the 5 formulas (P = .388).

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to other IOL formulas, the PEARL-DGS resulted in better refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in post-myopic laser refractive corneal surgery eyes without constant optimization. We suggest that PEARL-DGS be considered as the first choice for IOL power calculation in these eyes when the clinicians do not have their optimized constants.

An update on intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an ever-growing body of research regarding intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). This review intends to summarize recent data and offer updated recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Postmyopic LASIK/PRK eyes have the best refractive outcomes when multiple methods are averaged, or when Barrett True-K is used. Posthyperopic LASIK/PRK eyes also seem to do best when Barrett True-K is used, but with more variable results. With both aforementioned methods, using measured total corneal power incrementally improves results. For post-SMILE eyes, the first nontheoretical data favors raytracing.

SUMMARY

Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery are less accurate and more variable compared to virgin eyes. Surgeons may simplify their approach to IOL power calculations in postmyopic and posthyperopic LASIK/PRK by using Barrett True-K, and employing measured total corneal power when available. For post-SMILE eyes, ray tracing seems to work well, but lack of accessibility may hamper its adoption.

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

Accuracy of Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Myopic Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of the following intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas: Barrett True-K No History (BTKNH), Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK (EVO 2.0), Haigis-L, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) average, and Shammas, designed for patients who have undergone previous myopic refractive surgery, independent of preexisting clinical history and corneal tomographic measurements.

METHODS

Data from 302 eyes of 302 patients who previously underwent myopic refractive surgery and had cataract surgery done by a single surgeon with only one IOL type inserted were included. The predicted refraction was calculated for each of the formulas and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. Subgroup analysis based on the axial length and mean keratometry was performed.

RESULTS

On the basis of mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the formulas were ranked as follows: Haigis-L (0.61 diopters [D]), ASCRS average (0.63 D), BTKNH (0.67 D), EVO 2.0 (0.68 D), and Shammas (0.69 D). The Haigis-L had a statistically significant lower MAE compared with all formulas (P < .05) except the ASCRS average. Hyperopic mean prediction errors were seen in all formulas for axial lengths of greater than 30 mm or mean keratometry values of 35.00 diopters or less.

CONCLUSIONS

The Haigis-L and the ASCRS average formulas provided the most accurate results in the overall population evaluated in this study. Moreover, according to data observed, it is important to be careful handling very long eyes and very flat corneas because hyperopic refractions could be more common. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(7):443-449.].

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation According to the Difference between Anterior and Total Keratometry Using Scheimpflug Imaging

Purpose: We investigated the change in the absolute error according to the difference between anterior and total keratometry, to determine the criterion for the difference in keratometry, and to determine the indication for using total keratometry. Methods: Sagittal and total refractive power were measured with 2-, 3-, and 4-mm Pentacam^® rings, and the absolute error of each was calculated in patients who underwent cataract surgery in our hospital. The correlation between the difference value the sagittal minus the total refractive power and each absolute error was analyzed by simple regression analysis. The analysis was performed by dividing the patients into two groups based on 0.6, which is the average of the difference between the sagittal and total refractive power for the 3-mm ring. Results: Sagittal power was larger than total refractive power for all rings and the absolute error obtained by applying the total refractive power was larger than the sagittal power for the 2- and 4-mm rings (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The simple regression analysis revealed that the absolute error using sagittal power was positively correlated with the difference between sagittal power and total refractive power. In the group with less than 0.6, the absolute error using the total refractive power of all rings was larger than the sagittal power (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In the group exceeding 0.6, the absolute error using the total refractive power was less than using the sagittal power for the 3 mm ring (<i>p</i> = 0.028). Conclusions: The greater the difference between sagittal and total refractive power, the greater the absolute error using sagittal power. Accuracy was higher in the group exceeding 0.6 after applying total refractive power measured at the 3 mm ring compared to sagittal power.

Accuracy of Intraoperative Aberrometry, Barrett True-K With and Without Posterior Cornea Measurements, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L Formulas After Myopic Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Barrett TKNH with posterior corneal measurements (Barrett TKNH with PC), Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas in patients with cataract who had prior myopic refractive surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with prior myopic refractive surgery undergoing cataract extraction. Mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) of refraction prediction were compared for each formula. Interactions of each biometry measurement were modeled for each formula to evaluate those with the most significant impact on refraction prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen eyes of 79 patients were analyzed. MAE was 0.40 ± 0.33 diopters (D) for intraoperative aberrometry and 0.42 ± 0.31 D for the Barrett TKNH, 0.38 ± 0.30 D for the Barrett TKNH with PC, 0.47 ± 0.38 D for the Shammas-PL, and 0.56 ± 0.39 D for the Haigis-L formulas. Comparisons between formulas were significant for Barrett TKNH versus Barrett TKNH with PC formulas (P = .046), Barrett TKNH with PC versus Shammas-PL formulas (P = .023), and for all comparisons with the Haigis-L formula (P < .001), and not significant for all other comparisons (P > .05). Eyes were within ±0.50 D of prediction 73%, 72%, 69%, 62%, and 52% of the time for intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett TKNH with PC, Barrett TKNH, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas, respectively. Corneal asphericity (Q value) was significantly associated with prediction error for all five methods. Changes in anterior chamber depth had a significant impact on Shammas-PL prediction errors.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer technology using information from the posterior cornea modestly improved outcomes when compared to established methods for intraocular lens selection in eyes that had previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(1):60-68.].

Comparisons of intraocular lens power calculation methods for eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery: Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of the methods for calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery.

SETTING

EENT Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to July 2019 was conducted for studies that evaluated methods of calculating IOL power in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery. Outcomes measurements were the percentages of prediction error within ±0.50 diopters (D) and ±1.00 D of the target refraction (% ±0.50 D and % ±1.00 D). Traditional and network meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Nineteen prospective or retrospective clinical studies, including 1217 eyes and 13 calculation methods, were identified. A traditional meta-analysis showed that compared with the widely used Haigis-L method, the Barrett True-K formula, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and Masket methods showed significantly higher % ±0.50 D, whereas no difference was found in the % ±1.00 D. A network meta-analysis revealed that compared with the Haigis-L method, the OCT, Barrett True-K formula, and optiwave refractive analysis (ORA) methods performed better on the % ±0.50 D, whereas the Barrett True-K formula and ORA methods performed better on the % ±1.00 D. Based on the performances of both outcomes, the Barrett True-K formula, OCT, and ORA methods showed highest probability to rank the top 3 among the 13 methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett True-K formula, OCT, and ORA methods seemed to offer greater accuracy than others in calculating the IOL power for postrefractive surgery eyes.

Method for IOL Power Calculation in the Second Eye of Patients With Previous Keratorefractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To describe and evaluate a method for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in the second operative eye of patients with a history of keratorefractive surgery.

METHODS

All eyes had undergone cataract surgery by a single surgeon from 2015 to 2018. Postoperative outcomes on the first eye (eg, IOL power implanted and postoperative refractive error) were used to back calculate a "Real K" for the first eye. The difference (delta) between the second and first eye topographic simulated keratometry values was then added to the first eye Real K to calculate the second eye Real K. This Real K value was inputted into the Holladay IOL Consultant software as an "alternate K" to derive an accurate IOL power for the second eye. Mean absolute error, mean error, and percentage of eyes on target using the Delta K method were compared with results obtained with intraoperative abserrometry and the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K No History formulas.

RESULTS

The mean error for the Delta K method was significantly better than the Haigis-L (P = .00001) and Barrett True-K No History (P = .027) formulas, and on par with intra-operative aberrometry (P = .25). The mean absolute error of the Delta K method was significantly better than the Haigis-L formula (P = .03). The Delta K mean absolute error was on par with intraoperative aberrometry (P = .81) and the Barrett True-K No History formula (P = .56).

CONCLUSIONS

The Delta K mean absolute error is comparable to the Barrett True-K No History formula. The mean error is lower than that calculated with the Barrett True-K No History formula and comparable to intraoperative aberrometry. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(12):826-831.].

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes with Previous Excimer Laser Surgery for Myopia: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To review the literature to evaluate the outcomes of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with a history of myopic LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in the PubMed database in January 2020. Separate searches relevant to cataract surgery outcomes and corneal refractive surgery returned 1169 and 162 relevant citations, respectively, and the full text of 24 was reviewed. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for this assessment; all were assigned a level III rating of evidence by the panel methodologist.

RESULTS

When automated keratometry was used with a theoretical formula designed for eyes without previous laser vision correction, the mean prediction error (MPE) was universally positive (hyperopic), the mean absolute errors (MAEs) and median absolute errors (MedAEs) were relatively high (0.72-1.9 diopters [D] and 0.65-1.73 D, respectively), and a low (8%-40%) proportion of eyes were within 0.5 D of target spherical equivalent (SE). Formulas developed specifically for this population requiring both prerefractive surgery keratometry and manifest refraction (i.e., clinical history, corneal bypass, and Feiz-Mannis) produced a proportion of eyes within 0.5 D of target SE between 26% and 44%. Formulas requiring only preoperative keratometry or no history at all had lower MAEs (0.42-0.94 D) and MedAEs (0.30-0.81 D) and higher (30%-68%) proportions within 0.5 D of target SE. Strategies that averaged several methods yielded the lowest reported MedAEs (0.31-0.35 D) and highest (66%-68%) proportions within 0.5 D of target SE. Even after using the best-known methods, refractive outcomes were less accurate in eyes that had previous excimer laser surgery for myopia compared with those that did not have it.

CONCLUSIONS

Calculation methods requiring both prerefractive surgery keratometry and manifest refraction are no longer considered the gold standard. Refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in eyes that had previous excimer laser surgery are less accurate than in eyes that did not. Patients should be advised of this refractive limitation when considering cataract surgery in the setting of previous corneal refractive surgery. Conclusions are limited by the small sample sizes and retrospective nature of nearly all existing literature in this domain.

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery

Objectives

This comparative study aimed to determine if total keratometry (TK) from IOLMaster 700 could be applied to conventional formulas to perform IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, and to evaluate their accuracy with known post-laser refractive surgery formulas.

Methods

Sixty-four eyes of 49 patients with previous myopic laser refractive surgery were evaluated 1 month after cataract surgery. A comparison of the prediction error was made between no clinical history post-laser refractive surgery formulas (Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL) and conventional formulas (EVO, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T) using TK values obtained with the optical biometer IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), as well as Barrett True-K with TK.

Results

The mean prediction error was statistically different from zero for Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K with TK, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, and Holladay I with TK. The mean absolute error (MAE) was 0.424, 0.671, 0.638, 0.439, 0.408, 0.424, 0.479, 0.647, and 0.524, and median absolute error (MedAE) was 0.388, 0.586, 0.605, 0.298, 0.294, 0.324, 0.333, 0.438, and 0.377 for Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, Barrett True-K TK, EVO with TK, Haigis with TK, Hoffer Q with TK, Holladay I with TK, and SRK/T with TK, respectively. EVO TK followed by Barrett True-K TK and Haigis TK achieved the highest percentages of patients with absolute prediction error within 0.50 and 1.00 D (68.75%, 92.19%, and 64.06%, 92.19%, respectively)

Conclusions

Formulas combined with TK achieve similar or better results compared to existing no-history post-myopic laser refractive surgery formulas.

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.

Network Meta-analysis of No-History Methods to Calculate Intraocular Lens Power in Eyes With Previous Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery

PURPOSE

To systematically compare and rank the predictability of no-history intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic laser refractive surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the U.S. trial registry (www.ClinicalTrial.gov) were used to systematically search trials published up to August 2019. Included were case series studies reporting the following outcomes in patients with cataract undergoing phacoemulsification after laser refractive surgery: percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error (PE) within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D), mean absolute error (MAE), and median absolute error (MedAE). A network meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA software version 13.1 (STATACorp LLC).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving 1,098 eyes and 19 formulas were identified. A network meta-analysis for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D found that ray-tracing (Okulix), intraoperative aberrometry (Optiwave Refractive Analysis [ORA]), BESSt, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) (D-K SRK/T), and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas were more predictive than the Wang/Koch/Maloney, Shammas-PL, modified Rosa, Ferrara, and Equivalent K reading at 4.5 mm using the Double-K Holladay 1 formulas. With regard to ranking, the top four formulas as per the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values for the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D were the Okulix, ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). With regard to MAE, the ORA showed lower errors when compared to the Shammas-PL formula. In this regard, the top four formulas based on the SUCRA values were the Triple-S, BESSt, ORA, and Fourier-Domain OCT-Based formulas. The SToP (SRK/T), ORA, Fourier-Domain OCT-Based, and BESSt formulas had the lowest MedAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all three outcome measures of highest percentages of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D, lowest MAE, and lowest MedAE, the top three no-history formulas for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic corneal laser refractive surgery were: ORA, BESSt, and Triple-S (D-K SRK/T). [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):481-490.].

Comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes after corneal refractive surgery

Background

In cataract surgery, calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients who have previously received corneal refractive surgery on the same eye presents a clinical challenge. This study aims to compare the accuracy of the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas in predicting the IOL power in eyes following corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

This study analyzed 32 eyes belonging to 28 patients who underwent cataract surgery and IOL implantation after previously undergoing myopic corneal refractive surgery. The IOL power was calculated using the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas, and the accuracy of the three formulas was compared.

Results

The Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas had a mean arithmetic IOL prediction error of -0.65, -0.39, and -0.46, respectively. The mean numerical errors of the three formulas were significantly different from zero (P<0.001). The smallest median absolute refraction prediction error (median =0.40) belonged to the Barrett True-K formula, which was significantly smaller than that of the Haigis-L formula (median =0.57, P<0.05) but similar to that of the Shammas-PL formula (median =0.49, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the percentage of eyes within either ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction error across the three formulas.

Conclusions

The Barrett True-K formula can predict IOL power in eyes that have previously undergone myopic corneal refractive surgery better than the Haigis-L formula.

New method for intraocular lens power calculation using a rotating Scheimpflug camera in eyes with corneal refractive surgery

To introduce and evaluate a refraction-based method for calculating the correct power of the intraocular lens (IOL) in eyes with corneal refractive surgery and to compare the results here to previously published methods. Retrospective review of medical records was done. Group 1 was used to derive two formulas. From the relevant IOL calculation and postoperative refractive data, the refraction-derived K values (Krd) were calculated using a linear regression analysis. The values obtained with the two formulas were compared to previously published methods in group 2 to validate the results. The following methods were evaluated: Haigis-L, Barrett True-K (no history), Potvin-Hill, BESSt 2, Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power (TCRP) 4 mm (Haigis), Scheimpflug total refractive power (TRP) 4 mm (Haigis), modified Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis), and modified Scheimpflug TRP 4 mm (Haigis). The modified TCRP 4 mm Krd (Haigis) had good outcomes, with 60% and 90% of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D of the refractive target, respectively. A new method using modified Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power in the 4.0 mm zone appeared to be an accurate method for determining IOL power in eyes with corneal refractive surgery.

Diffractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation in patients with monofocal intraocular lens in the contralateral eye

AIM

To evaluate clinical outcomes of unilateral implantation of a diffractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) in patients with contralateral monofocal IOL.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients who already had implantation of a monofocal IOL in unilateral eye underwent implantation of a diffractive multifocal IOL in contralateral eye were enrolled. After 1, 6, and 12mo, uncorrected and distant corrected distant visual acuity (UCDVA and DCDVA), uncorrected and distant corrected intermediate-visual acuity (UCIVA and DCIVA), uncorrected and distant corrected near visual acuity (UCNVA and DCNVA), and contrast sensitivity were obtained. Halo/glare symptoms, spectacle dependence, and patient satisfaction were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age was 67.86±7.25y and the average interval between two IOL implantations was 645.82±878.44d. At 1mo, binocular UCDVA was lower than 0.20 logMAR in 76% of patients (mean 0.12±0.13 logMAR), which increased to 90% by 6 and 12mo. The binocular UCDVA was significantly better than the monocular results (P<0.05) at 1, 6, and 12mo. Additionally, UCNVA was lower than 0.40 logMAR in 82% of patients, increasing to 90% by 6 and 12mo. Mean UCNVA in the multifocal IOL implanted eye was statistically significantly better than that in the monofocal IOL implanted eye (P<0.05) at 1, 6, and 12mo. About 5% of patients at 1 and 6mo, reported "severe glare or halo". Patient satisfaction rates were 95% and 91% at 6 and 12mo, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral implantation of multifocal IOL in patients with a contralateral, monofocal IOL implantation results in high patient satisfaction rate, with low severe glare or halo rate during follow-up. It can represent a good option for patients who have previously had a monofocal IOL implantation regardless of two year interval duration between two IOL implantations.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes.

Methods

We searched the databases on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies published between Jan 1st, 2009 and Aug 11th, 2019. Primary outcomes were the percentages of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D.

Results

The final meta-analysis included 16 studies using seven common methods (ASCRS average, Barrett True-K no history, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis-L, OCT formula, Shammas-PL, and Wang-Koch-Maloney). ASCRS average yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.009, 0.01, 0.008, respectively). Barrett True-K no history also yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.01, P < 0.0001, respectively), and a similar result was found when comparing OCT formula with Haigis-L and Shammas-PL (P = 0.03, P = 0.01, respectively).

Conclusion

The ASCRS average or Barrett True-K no history should be used to calculate the intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery. The OCT formula if available, can also be a good alternative choice.

Total keratometry in intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery

IMPORTANCE

Intraocular lens (IOL) calculations in post-refractive cases remain a concern. Our study identifies improved options for surgeons.

BACKGROUND

To evaluate and compare the prediction accuracy of IOL power calculation methods after previous laser refractive surgery using standard keratometry (SK), measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and total keratometry (TK).

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive cohort.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 50 consecutive patients (72 eyes) at a private institution who underwent cataract surgery with prior laser refractive procedures.

METHODS

Methods using SK included ASCRS mean, Barrett True-K no history, Haigis-L and Shammas IOL formulae. Barrett True-K using posterior values (True K TK), Haigis and Holladay 1 Double-K methods using TK were also assessed. Post-surgery refraction was undertaken at minimum 3 weeks following surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Arithmetic and absolute IOL refractive prediction errors, variances in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and percentage of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D of refractive prediction errors were compared.

RESULTS

The Barrett True-K (TK) provided the lowest mean refractive prediction error (RPE) and variance for both prior myopes and hyperopes undergoing cataract surgery. The Barrett True-K (TK) exhibited the highest percentages of eyes within ±0.50D, ±0.75D and ±1.00D of the RPE compared to other formulae for prior myopic patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Accuracy of IOL power calculations in post-laser eyes can be improved by the addition of posterior corneal values as measured by the IOLMaster 700. The use of total keratometry may supplement outcomes when no prior refraction history is known.

An Alternative Approach to Cataract Surgery Using BSS Temperature of 2.7 °C

The aim of this study is to evaluate the difference in the number of endothelial cells after cataract operations with phacoemulsification by using a balanced salt solution (BSS) at standard temperature (about 20 °C) and at 2.7 °C. Two groups, comprising 214 individuals in total, participated in this study; patients were operated on using BSS bottle at about 20 °C and 2.7 °C in the first and second groups, respectively. All operations were conducted by the same surgeon and in similar conditions. One month after the operations, endothelial cells in the two groups were checked. For patients in Group 2, an important reduction in the loss of endothelial cells was observed.