New Formula to Calculate Corneal Power After Refractive Surgery

Bibliometric and visualized analysis of myopic corneal refractive surgery research: from 1979 to 2022

Background

Myopic corneal refractive surgery is one of the most prevalent ophthalmic procedures for correcting ametropia. This study aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of research in the field of corneal refractive surgery over the past 40 years in order to describe the current international status and to identify most influential factors, while highlighting research hotspots.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis based on the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was used to analyze the publication trends in research related to myopic corneal refractive surgery. VOSviewer v.1.6.10 was used to construct the knowledge map in order to visualize the publications, distribution of countries, international collaborations, author productivity, source journals, cited references, keywords, and research hotspots in this field.

Results

A total of 4,680 publications on myopic corneal refractive surgery published between 1979 and 2022 were retrieved. The United States has published the most papers, with Emory University contributing to the most citations. The Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery published the greatest number of articles, and the top 10 cited references mainly focused on outcomes and wound healing in refractive surgery. Previous research emphasized "radial keratotomy (RK)" and excimer laser-associated operation methods. The keywords containing femtosecond (FS) laser associated with "small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE)" and its "safety" had higher burst strength, indicating a shift of operation methods and coinciding with the global trends in refractive surgery. The document citation network was clustered into five groups: (1) outcomes of refractive surgery: (2) preoperative examinations for refractive surgery were as follows: (3) complications of myopic corneal refractive surgery; (4) corneal wound healing and cytobiology research related to photorefractive laser keratotomy; and (5) biomechanics of myopic corneal refractive surgery.

Conclusion

The bibliometric analysis in this study may provide scholars with valuable to information and help them better understand the global trends in myopic corneal refractive surgery research frontiers. Two stages of rapid development occurred around 1991 and 2013, shortly after the innovation of PRK and SMILE surgical techniques. The most cited articles mainly focused on corneal wound healing, clinical outcomes, ocular aberration, corneal ectasia, and corneal topography, representing the safety of the new techniques.

A No-History Multi-Formula Approach to Improve the IOL Power Calculation after Laser Refractive Surgery: Preliminary Results

This retrospective comparative study proposes a multi-formula approach by comparing no-history IOL power calculation methods after myopic laser-refractive-surgery (LRS). One-hundred-thirty-two eyes of 132 patients who had myopic-LRS and cataract surgery were examined. ALMA, Barrett True-K (TK), Ferrara, Jin, Kim, Latkany and Shammas methods were evaluated in order to back-calculate refractive prediction error (PE). To eliminate any systematic error, constant optimization through zeroing-out the mean error (ME) was performed for each formula. Median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D) of PE were analyzed. PEs were plotted with corresponding mean keratometry (K), axial length (AL), and AL/K ratio; then, different ranges were evaluated. With optimized constants through zeroing-out ME (90 eyes), ALMA was better when K ≤ 38.00 D-AL > 28.00 mm and when 38.00 D < K ≤ 40.00 D-26.50 mm < AL ≤ 29.50 mm; Barrett-TK was better when K ≤ 38.00 D-AL ≤ 26.50 mm and when K > 40.00 D-AL ≤ 28.00 mm or AL > 29.50 mm; and both ALMA and Barrett-TK were better in other ranges. (p < 0.05) Without modified constants (132 eyes), ALMA was better when K > 38.00 D-AL ≤ 29.50 mm and when 36.00 < K ≤ 38.00 D-AL ≤ 26.50 mm; Barrett-TK was better when K ≤ 36.00 D and when K ≤ 38.00 D with AL > 29.50 mm; and both ALMA and Barrett-TK were better in other ranges (p < 0.05). A multi-formula approach, according to different ranges of K and AL, could improve refractive outcomes in post-myopic-LRS eyes.

Repeatability and agreement of two A‐scan ultrasonic biometers and IOLMaster in non‐orthokeratology subjects and post‐orthokeratology children

PURPOSE

Our aim was to determine the repeatability of measurements of axial length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) made with two ultrasonic biometers and the IOLMaster in a group of non-orthokeratology (ortho-k) adult subjects and to investigate the agreement among instruments in children undergoing ortho-k therapy and in children wearing spectacles.

METHODS

To determine repeatability, AL and ACD were measured twice in 22 non-ortho-k young adults using two A-scan ultrasonic biometers (A-5500 and A-2500) and the IOLMaster. To determine agreement, AL and ACD were measured with the same instruments in 30 children undergoing ortho-k therapy and 30 spectacle-wearing children.

RESULTS

In the adult subjects, there were no significant differences in ACD and AL measurements obtained from the three instruments (repeated measures ANOVAs, p > 0.05). There was also no significant between-measurement difference for each instrument. The between-measurement agreement was better for the IOLMaster (95% limits of agreement (LA): -0.04 and +0.05 mm for both AL and ACD) than for the two A-scan ultrasonic biometers (95% LA: -0.12 and +0.11 mm for AL; -0.22 and +0.27 mm for ACD). Among the children, AL measurements with all three instruments were not significantly different from each other for both the children undergoing ortho-k therapy and those wearing spectacles (repeated measures ANOVAs, p > 0.05). The 95% LA of differences obtained from any two instruments were also comparable for both groups of subjects (within -0.20 mm and +0.20 mm). ACD measurements of the children were significantly different among the three instruments (repeated measures ANOVAs, p < 0.05). No significant differences in ACD measurements were found between A-5500 and A-2500 for both groups of children (paired t tests, p > 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

The repeatability of AL and ACD measurements with the IOLMaster was very good, and was better than with the A-scan ultrasonic biometers. The agreements in AL measurements between A-scan ultrasonic biometers and IOLMaster were comparable in both the ortho-k and the spectacle-wearing subjects, and were comparable to the repeatability of the A-scan ultrasonic biometers. ACD measurements between A-scan ultrasonic biometry and the IOLMaster were not comparable. AL measurements with the IOLMaster can replace the measurements from the two A-scan ultrasonic biometers used, however, the reverse is not true. AL and ACD measurements with all three instruments were unaffected by the flattened cornea following ortho-k lens wear.

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.].

Calculation of the Real Corneal Refractive Power after Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Pentacam, When Only the Preoperative Refractive Error is Known

Purpose

To check if a regression formula, IOLMaster-derived, to calculate the real corneal power after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), can give reliable results utilizing the Pentacam.

Methods

Pre- and postoperative IOLMaster, Km, and Pentacam K readings were measured. Patients who had myopic PRK were divided into two groups: the first group (108 eyes) was utilized to check which of the preop Pentacam K readings (P-Kpre) better fitted with the preop IOLMaster measurements; in the second group (120 eyes), the real K (Kr), obtained adding the effective treatment to the P-Kpre, were compared with the K readings calculated with the IOLMaster-derived formula (Kc). Moreover, an attempt to find a different formula utilizing the P-Kpre was made.

Results

In group 1, the best correlation was found between IOLMaster Km and Pentacam equivalent K readings (r2 0.9519). In group 2, the comparison between Kr and Pentacam postop Km showed 69 eyes (57%) with differences >0.5 D and 38 eyes (31%) with differences >1 D, (P < 0.001). The comparison between Kr and Kc showed 55 eyes (45%) with differences >0.5 D and 22 eyes (18%) with differences >1 D, (P < 0.001). Moreover, a regression formula K = EKR - [ETcp + (0.8114 ∗ ETcp - 0.2031)] was obtained in order to calculate the K readings to be used with the Pentacam in the IOL power calculation in case the effective treatment is known.

Conclusions

K calculated with the new formula could be used in patients that underwent refractive corneal surgery in case a Pentacam device is used, pending further studies conducted in clinical practice to establish its accuracy and effectiveness. This study further proves that data obtained from different machines cannot be used interchangeably.

Clinical Validation of Adjusted Corneal Power in Patients with Previous Myopic Lasik Surgery

Purpose. To validate clinically a new method for estimating the corneal power (P_c) using a variable keratometric index (n_kadj) in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery. Setting. University of Alicante and Medimar International Hospital (Oftalmar), Alicante, (Spain). Design. Retrospective case series. Methods. This retrospective study comprised 62 eyes of 62 patients that had undergone myopic LASIK surgery. An algorithm for the calculation of n_kadj was used for the estimation of the adjusted keratometric corneal power (P_kadj). This value was compared with the classical keratometric corneal power (P_k), the True Net Power (TNP), and the Gaussian corneal power (P_cGauss). Likewise, P_kadj was compared with other previously described methods. Results. Differences between P_cGauss and P_c values obtained with all methods evaluated were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Differences between P_kadj and P_cGauss were in the limit of clinical significance (p < 0.01, loA [−0.33,0.60] D). Differences between P_kadj and TNP were not statistically and clinically significant (p = 0.319, loA [−0.50,0.44] D). Differences between P_kadj and previously described methods were statistically significant (p < 0.01), except with P_cHaigisL (p = 0.09, loA [−0.37,0.29] D). Conclusion. The use of the adjusted keratometric index (n_kadj) is a valid method to estimate the central corneal power in corneas with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, providing results comparable to P_cHaigisL.

Estimation of intraocular lens power calculation after myopic corneal refractive surgery: using corneal height in anterior segment optical coherence tomography

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of estimating effective lens position (ELP) and calculating intraocular lens power using corneal height (CH), as measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), in patients who have undergone corneal refractive surgery.

METHODS

This study included 23 patients (30 eyes) who have undergone myopic corneal refractive surgery and subsequent successful cataract surgery. The CH was measured with AS-OCT, and the measured ELP (ELPm) was calculated. Intraocular lens power, which could achieve actual emmetropia (Preal), was determined with medical records. Estimated ELP (ELPest) was back-calculated using Preal, axial length, and keratometric value through the SRK/T formula. After searching the best-fit regression formula between ELPm and ELPest, converted ELP and intraocular lens power (ELPconv, Pconv) were obtained and then compared to ELPest and Preal, respectively. The proportion of eyes within a defined error was investigated.

RESULTS

Mean CH, ELPest, and ELPm were 3.71 ± 0.23, 7.74 ± 1.09, 5.78 ± 0.26 mm, respectively. The ELPm and ELPest were linearly correlated (ELPest = 1.841 × ELPm - 2.018, p = 0.023, R = 0.410) and ELPconv and Pconv agreed well with ELPest and Preal, respectively. Eyes within ±0.5, ±1.0, ±1.5, and ±2.0 diopters of the calculated Pconv, were 23.3%, 66.6%, 83.3%, and 100.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraocular lens power calculation using CH measured with AS-OCT shows comparable accuracy to several conventional methods in eyes following corneal refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens power calculation following laser refractive surgery

Refractive outcomes following cataract surgery in patients that have previously undergone laser refractive surgery have traditionally been underwhelming. This is related to several key issues including the preoperative assessment (keratometry) and intraocular lens power calculations. Peer-reviewed literature is overwhelmed by the influx of methodology to manipulate the corneal or intraocular lens (IOL) powers following refractive surgery. This would suggest that the optimal derivative formula has yet been introduced. This review discusses the problems facing surgeons approaching IOL calculations in these post-refractive laser patients, the existing formulae and programs to address these concerns. Prior published outcomes will be reviewed.

Corneal Anterior Power Calculation for an IOL in Post-PRK Patients

PURPOSE

After corneal refractive surgery, there is an overestimation of the corneal power with the devices routinely used to measure it. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine whether, in patients who underwent photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), it is possible to predict the earlier preoperative anterior corneal power from the postoperative (PO) posterior corneal power. A comparison is made using a formula published by Saiki for laser in situ keratomileusis patients and a new one calculated specifically from PRK patients.

METHODS

The Saiki formula was tested in 98 eyes of 98 patients (47 women) who underwent PRK for myopia or myopic astigmatism. Moreover, anterior and posterior mean keratometry (Km) values from a Scheimpflug camera were measured to obtain a specific regression formula.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) preoperative Km was 43.50 (±1.39) diopters (D) (range, 39.25 to 47.05 D). The mean (±SD) Km value calculated with the Saiki formula using the 6 months PO posterior Km was 42.94 (±1.19) D (range, 40.34 to 45.98 D) with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). Six months after PRK in our patients, the posterior Km was correlated with the anterior preoperative one by the following regression formula: y = -4.9707x + 12.457 (R² = 0.7656), where x is PO posterior Km and y is preoperative anterior Km, similar to the one calculated by Saiki.

CONCLUSIONS

Care should be taken in using the Saiki formula to calculate the preoperative Km in patients who underwent PRK.

IOL power calculation after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To describe the different formulas that try to overcome the problem of calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients that underwent corneal refractive surgery (CRS).

METHODS

A Pubmed literature search review of all published articles, on keyword associated with IOL power calculation and corneal refractive surgery, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 33 peer reviewed articles dealing with methods that try to overcome the problem of calculating the IOL power in patients that underwent CRS were found. According to the information needed to try to overcome this problem, the methods were divided in two main categories: 18 methods were based on the knowledge of the patient clinical history and 15 methods that do not require such knowledge. The first group was further divided into five subgroups based on the parameters needed to make such calculation.

CONCLUSION

In the light of our findings, to avoid postoperative nasty surprises, we suggest using only those methods that have shown good results in a large number of patients, possibly by averaging the results obtained with these methods.

Computerized Scheimpflug densitometry as a measure of corneal optical density after excimer laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes

PURPOSE

To evaluate changes in anterior corneal optical density and the refractive index after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using a rotating Scheimpflug system.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy.

DESIGN

Comparative case series.

METHODS

Anterior corneal optical density was evaluated with a rotating Scheimpflug system at baseline and 3 months and 12 months after PRK in eyes with a refractive error between -6.00 diopters (D) and -12.00 D (study group). A control group of unoperated eyes with the same refraction range was used to calculate corneal optical density and the Gladstone-Dale constant in unoperated eyes using the Gladstone-Dale formula. In the study group, changes in the anterior corneal optical density were evaluated over time and variations in the anterior corneal refractive index were obtained using the Gladstone-Dale constant.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 37 eyes and the control group, 200 eyes. In the study group, the mean anterior corneal optical density and refractive index, respectively, were 27.71 ± 4.39 and 1.360 ± 0.05 at baseline, 37.812 ± 12.31 and 1.491 ± 0.16 after 3 months (P<.001 compared with baseline), and 26.29 ± 4.93 and 1.341 ± 0.06 after 12 months (P=.03 compared with baseline). The mean corneal optical density in the control group was 27.71 ± 4.31 (SD), and the resultant Gladstone-Dale constant was 0.013.

CONCLUSION

An early increase and a subsequent reduction in anterior corneal optical density and the refractive index were present in myopic eyes during 1 year after PRK.

New factor to improve reliability of the clinical history method for intraocular lens power calculation after refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To determine whether the refractive error in an eye developing cataract after refractive surgery represents actual regression or is cataract related and whether the method to gather this information would allow the use of history-related formulas in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after refractive surgery.

SETTING

Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.

DESIGN

Case series.

METHODS

The refractive effects, axial length (AL), and mean keratotomy (K) values were evaluated in eyes before and 6 months after photorefractive keratectomy for myopia or for myopic or mixed astigmatism.

RESULTS

The study evaluated 257 eyes of 166 patients (93 women). Before surgery, there was a high correlation between refractive error and the product of AL and K (AL × K) (r(2) = 0.8213). In patients with refractive results close to emmetropia, the mean AL × K was 1005.91 ± 25.88 (SD), meaning that in the range of 954 and 1058, there was a 95% possibility that the patients were almost fully corrected. The following regression formula was obtained to calculate the amount of refractive error independent of cataract onset: Refractive error = -0.0157 × (AL × K) + 16.437.

CONCLUSIONS

The regression formula determined whether the refraction depended on the onset of cataract and estimated the amount of undercorrection or overcorrection that occurred after refractive surgery, leading to improved estimation of the power of the IOL to be implanted. It may allow the use of history-related formulas in IOL power calculation for eyes that have had corneal refractive surgery.

Intraocular lens power calculation after myopic excimer laser surgery: clinical comparison of published methods

PURPOSE

To compare results of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic excimer laser surgery.

SETTING

Private practice.

METHODS

In this prospective study, eyes having phacoemulsification after myopic excimer laser surgery were classified into Group 1 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change known), Group 2 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change uncertain), and Group 3 (preoperative corneal power unavailable, refractive change known even if uncertain). The IOL power was calculated using the following methods: clinical history, Awwad, Camellin/Calossi, Diehl, Feiz, Ferrara, Latkany, Masket, Rosa, Savini, Shammas, Seitz/Speicher, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini.

RESULTS

The lowest mean absolute errors (MAEs) in IOL power prediction in Group 1 (n = 12) and Group 2 (n = 11), respectively, were with the methods of Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.51 diopter [D] +/- 0.44 [SD] and 0.55 +/- 0.50 D), Seitz/Speicher (0.58 +/- 0.47 D and 0.54 +/- 0.45 D), Savini (0.60 +/- 0.44 D and 0.65 +/- 0.63 D), Masket (0.82 +/- 0.49 D and 0.69 +/- 0.51 D), and Shammas (0.77 +/- 0.43 D and 1.11 +/- 0.50 D). In Group 3 (n = 5), the lowest MAEs were with the methods of Masket (0.23 +/- 0.27 D), Savini (0.49 +/- 0.86 D), Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.68 +/- 0.36 D), Shammas (0.84 +/- 0.98 D), and Camellin/Calossi (0.91 +/- 0.84 D).

CONCLUSIONS

When corneal power is known, the Seitz/Speicher method (with or without Savini adjustment) seems the best solution to obtain an accurate IOL power prediction. Otherwise, the Masket method may be the most reliable option.

Origins of the keratometer and its evolving role in ophthalmology

The keratometer, or ophthalmometer as it was originally known, had its origins in the attempt to discover the seat of accommodation in the eye. Since that early beginning, it has been re-invented a number of times, with improvements and modifications made in the original principles of its design for new applications that arose as ophthalmology advanced. The cornea is not only responsible for the majority of the refraction in the eye, but is also readily accessible for measurement and modification. The keratometer's ability to measure the cornea has allowed it to play a central role in critical advances in ophthalmic history. This review describes the origins and principles of this instrument, the novel applications that led to the keratometer's continued resurgences over its nearly 250-year history, and the modern devices that have borrowed its basic principles and are beginning to replace it in common clinical practice.

Calculation of intraocular lens power using Orbscan II quantitative area topography after corneal refractive surgery

PURPOSE

To present the prospective application of the Orbscan II central 2-mm total-mean corneal power obtained by quantitative area topography in intraocular lens (IOL) calculation after refractive surgery.

METHODS

Calculated and achieved refraction and the difference between them were studied in 77 eyes of 61 patients with previous radial keratotomy (RK), RK and additional surgeries, myopic LASIK, myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), or hyperopic LASIK who underwent phacoemulsification without complications in 3 eye centers. All IOL calculations used the average from the central 2-mm Orbscan II total-mean power of maps centered on the pupil without the use of previous refractive data. Six IOL styles implanted within the bag were used.

RESULTS

Using the SRK-T formula, the overall calculated refraction was -0.64+/-0.93 diopters (D). The overall achieved spherical equivalent refraction (-0.52+/-0.79 D; range: -3.12 to 1.25 D; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.70/-0.34 D) was +/-0.50 D in 53% of eyes, +/-1.00 D in 78% of eyes, and +/-2.00 D in 99% of eyes. The overall difference between the calculated and achieved refraction (0.12+/-0.93 D, P=.27; range: -2.18 to 2.62 D; 95% CI: 0.09/0.33 D) was +/-0.50 D in 39% of eyes, +/-1.00 D in 77% of eyes, and +/-2.00 D in 96% of eyes. This difference was +/-1.00 D in 77% of eyes with RK (P=.70), 82% of eyes with myopic LASIK (P=.34), and 90% of eyes with myopic PRK (P=.96). In eyes with RK followed by LASIK, a trend toward undercorrection was noted (P=.03). In eyes with hyperopic LASIK, a trend toward overcorrection was noted (P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery, IOL power calculation can be performed with reasonable accuracy using the Orbscan II central 2-mm total-mean power. This method had better outcomes in eyes with previous RK, myopic LASIK, and myopic PRK than in eyes with hyperopic LASIK or RK with LASIK.

Cataract surgery after refractive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent contributions addressing the challenge of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in patients undergoing cataract extraction following corneal refractive surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although several articles have provided excellent summaries of IOL selection in patients wherein prerefractive surgery data are available, numerous authors have recently described approaches to attempt more accurate IOL power calculations for patients who present with no reliable clinical information regarding their refractive history. Additionally, results have been reported using the Scheimpflug camera system to measure corneal power in an attempt to resolve the most important potential source of error for IOL determination in these patients.

SUMMARY

IOL selection in patients undergoing cataract surgery after corneal refractive surgery continues to be a challenging and complex issue despite numerous strategies and formulas described in the literature. Current focus seems to be directed toward approaches that do not require preoperative refractive surgery information. Due to the relative dearth of comparative clinical outcomes data, the optimal solution to this ongoing clinical problem has yet to be determined. Until such data are available, many cataract surgeons compare the results of multiple formulas to assist them in IOL selection for these patients.

Intraocular lens power calculation after previous laser refractive surgery

Methods to attempt more accurate prediction of intraocular lens power in refractive surgery eyes are many, and none has proved to be the most accurate. Until one is identified, a spreadsheet tool is available and can be used. It automatically calculates all the methods for which data are available on a single sheet for the patient's chart. The various methods and how they work are described.

Intraocular lens power calculation after automated lamellar keratoplasty for high myopia

PURPOSE

To report intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in 2 eyes that were highly undercorrected by previous myopic automated lamellar keratoplasty (ALK).

METHODS

A 35-year-old man underwent bilateral myopic ALK, which caused high residual myopia (-9.0 -4.0 x 171 and -9.5 -4.5 x 74). The patient then underwent cataract surgery with IOL implantation for cataract development. The double-K clinical history method was utilized, and satisfactory IOL power prediction results were obtained. Two no-history IOL power calculation methods (Rosa correcting factor method and Ferrara theoretical variable refractive index method), which involved axial length-dependent modification of the keratometer-measured corneal radius, and 1 no-history IOL power calculation method (Shammas' method), which involved axial length-independent modification of the keratometer-measured corneal power, were tested on these 2 eyes.

RESULTS

In both eyes, the double-K SRK-T clinical history method gave small IOL prediction errors (-0.66 and -0.81 D). The Shammas' no-history method gave a slightly higher IOL prediction error in the right eye (-1.67 D) and a small IOL prediction error in the left eye (-0.74 D). Unacceptable IOL power prediction errors would have resulted if Rosa's correcting factor method (-8.07 and -8.35 D) or Ferrara's theoretical variable refractive index method (-17.56 and -18.51 D) had been applied. When we utilized Rosa's method for the IOL power calculation by assuming that the previous ALK had fully corrected the refractive error, the predicted IOL powers were very close to the benchmark IOL powers (IOL power prediction errors: 1.16 and 0.37 D). When we utilized Ferrara's method with the same assumption, the IOL power prediction errors remained high (-6.32 and -7.16 D).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients who have had previous myopic ALK (and whose eyes are highly undercorrected) and who require cataract surgery and for whom the pre-ALK history is available, the double-K method appears to yield excellent predictive results. However, if the pre-ALK history is not available, the Shammas' no-history method appears to yield better results than the Rosa's or the Ferrara's method. High undercorrection by the previous ALK might have been one of the major reasons why Rosa's method resulted in a high IOL prediction error in these 2 eyes. The cause for the marked IOL prediction error by Ferrara's method in this case, however, remains to be determined.

Correlation Between Attempted Correction and Keratometric Refractive Index of the Cornea After Myopic Excimer Laser Surgery

PURPOSE

Given that the standard keratometric refractive index of 1.3375 is no longer valid after excimer laser surgery, we aimed to investigate how this value changes postoperatively and if any correlation to the attempted correction exists.

METHODS

The pre- and postoperative data of 98 patients who underwent either myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) or LASIK were reviewed. Using postoperative videokeratography, the corneal radius (r) was obtained; the corrected corneal power (Pc) was measured by separately calculating the dioptric power of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces. The postoperative index of refraction (n(post)) was derived from these values using the formula: n(post) = (rPc) +1.

RESULTS

As the amount of refractive change increases, n(post) progressively decreases (P < .0001, r = 0.9581). Linear regression provided the subsequent formula to calculate the postoperative index of refraction: n(post) = 1.338 + 0.0009856 x attempted correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Myopic PRK and LASIK induce a decrease in the keratometric refractive index. This reduction correlates to the amount of attempted correction. When the latter is known, calculating n(post) may enable the measurement of corneal power and thus provide an additional method for calculating intraocular lens power in eyes that have undergone myopic PRK or LASIK.

New frontiers for the perioperative data method for IOL calculation following corneal refractive surgeries

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficiency of the perioperative data method for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation after correction of myopia and hyperopia with different techniques, including reoperated cases.

METHODS

Thirty-five eyes (26 patients) that developed cataract after corneal refractive procedures were evaluated retrospectively. They were categorized according to initial error of refraction into myopes and hyperopes and according to types of refractive procedures into ablative, incisional, both, or others. Reoperated cases were also considered. Number of refractive procedures was noted. Time interval between the first procedure and cataract extraction was indicated. Perioperative method was used to calculate the K value. SRK/T formula was used to calculate IOL power. Difference between intended and finally achieved manifest refraction was an indicator for efficiency of the calculation.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, 77.2% of cases had manifest refraction +/-1.5 D of intended refraction. There was no difference between myopes and hyperopes in terms of final manifest refraction, best-corrected visual acuity, and difference between intended and finally achieved manifest refraction. Similarly were groups of different types of surgeries. Efficiency of the method decreased with high axial lengths and low IOL powers. Neither the number of refractive surgeries nor time interval between surgeries affected efficiency of the method.

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative data method is equally effective for myopes and hyperopes. The types, numbers of refractive procedures, as well as the time interval between refractive surgery and cataract extraction do not alter the credibility of the method. In high degrees of myopia, the method gives less accurate results.

A regression model for correcting intraocular lens power after refractive surgery independent of preoperative data

PURPOSE

To find a method of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power that may be independent of preoperative data in eyes that have previously undergone myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).

METHODS

In 148 eyes of 75 patients, before and 6 months after LASIK, IOL power was calculated with SRK/T formula utilizing the spherical equivalent as the desired target refraction. Assuming that LASIK does not alter the crystalline lens refractive properties, IOL calculation error (CER) was estimated with this formula: CER = [pre-LASIK IOL power]/[post-LASIK IOL power]. Then the authors used postoperative biometry and Orbscan II corneal topography data in multiple regression models to find the best variables to predict the CER. Predicted amount of error which is calculated independent of preoperative data could be used to correct the post-LASIK calculated IOL: [corrected post-LASIK IOL power] = CER x [post-LASIK IOL power].

RESULTS

A regression model with these predictors was found: axial length in millimeters (L), radius of the anterior corneal surface best fitted sphere in millimeters divided by radius of the posterior corneal surface best fitted sphere in millimeters (AntBFS/PostBFS), corneal central 5 millimeters mean power in diopters divided by corneal central 3 millimeters mean power in diopters (mean 5 mm/mean 3 mm), the post-LASIK IOL power, and the post-LASIK simulated K reading. The model R square was 0.88.

CONCLUSIONS

There is correlation between post-LASIK biometry values and IOL power correction factor. This study presents a new model for further investigation.

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Myopic Refractive Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability of different methods developed to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power after corneal refractive surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

PARTICIPANTS

Preoperative and postoperative data of all eyes that underwent myopic excimer laser surgery in a private practice (Centro Salus, Bologna, Italy) between 1999 and 2004 were reviewed.

INTERVENTION

The following methods were analyzed: videokeratography, clinical history, Shammas' refraction-derived and clinically derived methods, Rosa's correcting factor, Ferrara's variable refractive index, separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), Feiz-Mannis' formula and nomogram, and Latkany's regression formulas (based on both average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry). The Holladay 1 formula was used for eyes with an axial length between 22 and 24.49 mm and the SRK-T for eyes longer than 24.49 mm. Double-K formulas were also evaluated, when applicable. Each IOL power determined with these methods was compared to a benchmark value, calculated using the preoperative axial length and corneal power and aiming for the preoperative spherical equivalent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean error in IOL power prediction.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight eyes of 98 patients were analyzed. The double-K clinical history method, Feiz-Mannis' formula, double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvature (with and without preoperative data), and both Latkany's regression formulas were the only methods resulting in a mean IOL power not statistically different (P>0.05) from the benchmark used for comparative purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

When prerefractive surgery data are available, IOL power should be calculated using the double-K clinical history method. Alternative choices may be represented by the Feiz-Mannis' formula, Latkany's regression formulas based on average and flattest postrefractive surgery keratometry, and the double-K method based on separate consideration of anterior and posterior corneal curvatures. A variant of the latter can be used to calculate IOL power when prerefractive surgery data are not available. Further prospective studies based on patients undergoing phacoemulsification after refractive surgery are needed to validate the results of this theoretical comparison.