Prediction Accuracy of Total Keratometry Compared to Standard Keratometry Using Different Intraocular Lens Power Formulas

Accuracy of recent intraocular lens power calculation methods in post-myopic LASIK eyes

This retrospective study compared postoperative prediction errors of recent formulas using standard- or total keratometry (K or TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-myopic LASIK patients. It included 56 eyes of 56 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery, with at least 1-month follow-up at Keio University Hospital in Tokyo or Hayashi Eye Hospital in Yokohama, Japan. Prediction errors, absolute errors, and percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated using nine formulas: Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K TK, Haigis-L, Haigis TK, Pearl-DGS, Hoffer QST, Hoffer QST PK, EVO K, and EVO PK. Statistical comparisons utilized Friedman test, Conover's all-pairs post-hoc, Cochran's Q, and McNemar post-hoc testing. Root-Mean-Square Error (RMSE) was compared with heteroscedastic testing. Barrett True-K TK had the lowest median predicted refractive error (-0.01). EVO PK had the smallest median absolute error (0.20). EVO PK had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D of the predicted value (58.9%), significantly better than Haigis-L (p = 0.047). EVO PK had the lowest mean RMSE value (0.499). The EVO PK formula yielded the most accurate IOL power calculation in post-myopic LASIK eyes, with TK/PK values enhancing accuracy.

Optimizing IOL Calculators with Deep Learning Prediction of Total Corneal Astigmatism

Background/Objectives: This study aims to identify the most accurate regression model for predicting total corneal astigmatism (TCA) from anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) and to fine-tune the best model's architecture to further optimize predictive accuracy. Methods: A retrospective review of 19,468 eyes screened for refractive surgery was conducted using electronic medical records. Corneal topography data were acquired using the Pentacam HR. Various types (7) and subtypes (21) of regression learners were tested, with a deep neural network (DNN) emerging as the most suitable. The DNN was further refined, experimenting with 23 different architectures. Model performance was evaluated using root mean squared error (RMSE), R2, average residual error, and circular error. The final model only used age, ACA magnitude, and ACA axis to predict TCA magnitude and axis. Results were compared to predictions from one of the leading TCA prediction formulas. Results: Our model achieved higher performance for TCA magnitude prediction (R2 = 0.9740, RMSE = 0.0963 D, and average residual error = 0.0733 D) compared to the leading formula (R2 = 0.8590, RMSE = 0.2257 D, and average residual error = 0.1928 D). Axis prediction error also improved by an average of 8.1° (average axis prediction error = 4.74° versus 12.8°). The deep learning approach consistently demonstrated smaller errors and tighter clustering around actual values compared to the traditional formula. Conclusion: Deep learning techniques significantly outperformed traditional methods for TCA prediction accuracy using the Pentacam HR. This approach may lead to more precise TCA calculations and better IOL selection, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes.

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Prediction Accuracy Between 2 Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry Devices

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction accuracy of the Eyestar 900 (EyeS900) and the IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700) based on estimated and measured posterior corneal power.

DESIGN

Retrospective, interinstrument reliability study.

METHODS

Setting: Institutional.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred twenty-five eyes of 225 cataract surgery patients.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients underwent measurements by both devices preoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error (SEQ-PE), spread of the SEQ-PE (precision) and the absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) of each device using Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula with either estimated posterior keratometry (E-PK) or measured posterior keratometry (M-PK).

RESULTS

Trimmed mean SEQ-PEs of EyeS900 E-PK, EyeS900 M-PK, IOLM700 E-PK, and IOLM700 M-PK were 0.03, 0.08, 0.02, and 0.09 D, respectively with no significant differences between EyeS900 E-PK and IOLM700 E-PK (P = 0.31) as well as between EyeS900 M-PK and IOLM700 M-PK (P = 0.31). Statistically significant SEQ-PE differences were found when E-PK and M-PK were compared, regardless of the device used, showing hyperopic SEQ-PE in M-PK calculations. Excellent correlation and agreement in SEQ-PE were found between the devices for both E-PK (P < 0.001, r = 0.848, mean bias: +0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.32 to +0.34 D) and M-PK (P < 0.001, r = 0.776, mean bias: -0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.42 to +0.39 D). No significant differences were found comparing absolute SEQ-PE and precision of the devices.

CONCLUSION

The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show comparable IOL power prediction accuracy by the BUII formula using either estimated or measured posterior keratometry. An adjusted lens factor may be required for BUII when utilizing measured posterior keratometry in both devices.

Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes

PURPOSE

To compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Setting: Two academic centers Study Population: 576 eyes (400 patients) with previous M-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. A SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry values (TK).

OBSERVATION PROCEDURES

Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 11 no-history formulas: two legacy M-LVC formulas, four new M-LVC formulas using K values only, and five new M-LVC formulas using K with PK or TK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Heteroscedastic testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance, and formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS

New M-LVC formulas performed better than legacy M-LVC formulas. New M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values performed better than versions without PK/TK values. Among new M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values, EVO 2.0-PK was superior to Hoffer QST-PK (P < 0.005). Among new M-LVC formulas using K only, Pearl DGS-K and EVO 2.0-K were both superior to Hoffer QST-K and Barrett True K NH-K formulas (all P < 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons should favor using new no-history post M-LVC formulas over legacy post M-LVC formulas whenever possible. The top-performing M-LVC formulas (EVO 2.0-PK, Pearl DGS-PK, and Barrett True K-TK) utilized posterior corneal power values. Among formulas utilizing K alone, the EVO 2.0-K and Pearl DGS-K performed best.

Assessment of the refractive outcomes of patients with regular corneal astigmatism implanted with high-power toric intraocular lenses

BACKGROUND

To describe the refractive outcomes of eyes with high regular corneal astigmatism undergoing age-related cataract surgery.

METHODS

Astigmatic patients who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of high-power XY1AT HOYA® toric lenses (IOLs) (≥ T5) between March 2020 and June 2022 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the type of Total Corneal Astigmatism (TCA) used for the toric IOL calculation: group 1 = TCATK- 700 (TCA measured by the Iol Master 700®) and group 2 = TCAAK- 700 (TCA estimated from the anterior keratometry of the Iol Master 700® and using the Abulafia-Koch regression). The best-uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, subjective spherical equivalent (SSEq) and subjective residual cylinder (SRC) were assessed at 1 month. The predictability (centroid [CEPA] and mean absolute error in predicted astigmatism [MAEPA]) of the 2 TCA assessment methods was analyzed.

RESULTS

96 eyes of 74 patients were included. In the whole cohort, the UDVA was 0.14 ± 0.19 logMAR, the CDVA was 0.04 ± 0.07 logMAR. Postoperative SSEq was - 0.24 ± 0.53D. Postoperative SRC was - 0.48 ± 0.56D. The UDVA, SSEq and SRC did not significantly differ between groups. The MAEPA was significantly better with TCAAK-700 compared to TCATK-700: 0.58 ± 0.52D versus 0.65 ± 0.55D (p = 0.01). No significant difference was observed for the CEPA (p(x) = 0.09, p(y) = 0.19).

CONCLUSIONS

XY1AT HOYA® toric IOLs are a very good alternative even in case of high toricity. Residual astigmatism predictability is high, it would be better with TCAAK- 700. This data should be confirmed with a larger sample of patients.

Total and simulated keratometry measurements using IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL after small incision lenticule extraction

PURPOSE

Calculating the intraocular lens (IOL) in patients after corneal refractive surgery presents a challenge. Because an overestimation of corneal power in cases undergone this surgery leading to a subsequent under-correction of IOL power. However, recent advancements in technology have eliable measurement of total corneal power. The aim of this research was to assess the agreement in simulated keratometry (SimK) and total keratometry (TK) values between IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL.

METHODS

The study involved 99 patients (99 eyes) undergone small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery. Each patient underwent scans using IOL Master 700 and Pentacam AXL. The following parameters were recorded: SimK1, SimK2, Total K1 (TK1), and Total K2 (TK2) for IOLMaster 700; and SimK1, SimK2, True Net Power (TNP) K1, TNPK2, Total Corneal Refractive Power (TCRP) K1, and TCRP K2 for Pentacam AXL. Agreement between the two devices was evaluated using Bland-Altman plot, while paired t-test was utilized to compare any differences in the same parameter by both instruments.

RESULTS

The results revealed a strong correlation between the two devices.Noticeable comparability was identified for all SimK variables. However, there were noticeable differences in TK measurements as well as TK1-TNPK1, TK2-TNP K2, TK1-TCRP K1, and TK2-TCRP K2 parameters when comparing the two devices. The IOLMaster 700 consistently measured steeper values than the Pentacam AXL, with significant and clinically relevant differences of 1.34, 1.37, 0.87, and 0.95 diopters, respectively.

CONCLUSION

While there was a noticeable correlation between the IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL in SimK measurements, a marked difference was noted in TK values. The two devices cannot be used interchangeably when quantifying TK values.

Comparison of refractive outcomes obtained with two swept-source OCT-based optical biometers after cataract surgery: A study of 152 eyes

PURPOSE

To compare two swept-source OCT optical biometers, the Anterion® (Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) and the IOLMaster 700® (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany), in the analysis of biometric data, intraocular lens (IOL) calculation and postoperative spherical equivalent predictability.

METHODS

This was a real-life, single-center, retrospective study including 152 eyes of 81 consecutive patients referred for cataract surgery. All patients were examined with the IOLMaster 700® and the Anterion®. Biometric data (axial length [AL], anterior chamber depth [ACD], mean keratometry [Km], K1 [flat keratometry], K2 [steep keratometry] and axis, TK1 [flat total keratometry], TK2 [steep total keratometry], central pachymetry, lens thickness [LT], white-to-white distance [WTW]), IOL calculation with the SRK/T formula, and postoperative refractive outcome at 1 month were compared.

RESULTS

All biometric measurements were significantly different between the two biometers. Correlations were excellent for AL, pachymetry, ACD, LT and keratometry measurements, and for the IOL calculation (r>0.96, intraclass correlation coefficient=1). The IOL power for emmetropia was similar between both biometers when the SRK/T formula was used (20.84±3.24D versus 20.86±3.29D, P=0.61). The mean postoperative spherical equivalent prediction error calculated using the SRK/T formula was 0.03±0.5D for the IOLMaster 700® versus 0.01±0.47D for the Anterion® (P=0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed excellent correlation and agreement for the biometric measurements and the IOL power calculation with the SRK/T formula between both biometers.

Intraocular lens power calculation using total keratometry and ray tracing in eyes with previous small incision lenticule extraction - A case series

Purpose

To assess the IOL power calculation accuracy in post-SMILE eyes using ray tracing and a range of total keratometry based IOL calculation formulae.

Observations

Ray tracing showed excellent predictability in IOL power calculation after SMILE and its accuracy was clinically comparable with the Barrett TK Universal II and Haigis TK formula.

Conclusions and importance

Incorporating posterior corneal curvature measurements into IOL power calculation after SMILE seems prudent. The ray tracing method as well as selected TK-based formulae yielded excellent accuracy and should be favored in post-SMILE eyes.

Effect of Posterior Keratometry on the Accuracy of 10 Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas: Standard Keratometry versus Total Keratometry

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of posterior keratometry (PK) on the accuracy of 10 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas using standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK).

METHODS

This is a retrospective consecutive case-series study. The IOL power was calculated using K and TK measured by IOLMaster 700 in 6 new-generation formulas (Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, RBF Calculator 3.0, Hoffer QST, Kane, and Ladas Super Formula) and 4 traditional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T). The arithmetic prediction error (PE) and mean absolute PE (MAE) were evaluated. The locally-weighted scatterplot smoothing was performed to assess the relationship between PE and PK.

RESULTS

A total of 576 patients (576 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery were included. Compared with using K, all formulas using TK showed a hyperopic shift in the whole group. Specifically, for eyes with PK exceeding -5.90 D, all formulas using TK exhibited a hyperopic shift (all P < 0.001), while eyes with PK less than -5.90 D showed a myopic shift (all P < 0.001). The MAE of new-generation formulas calculated with TK and K showed no statistical differences, while the MAE of traditional formulas with TK was larger (TK: 0.34 ~ 0.43 D; K: 0.33 ~ 0.42 D, all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction bias of formulas with TK increased as PK deviated from -5.90 D. TK did not improve the prediction accuracy of new-generation formulas, and even performed worse in traditional formulas.

Comparison of Barrett TK Universal II and Barrett Universal II TCRP Formulas in Power Calculations for 3 Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses

Purpose

To compare Barrett TK Universal II and Barrett Universal II TCRP calculations in the power calculations for 3 presbyopia-correcting intraocular lenses (PC-IOL).

Methods

This observational study involved 64 eyes from 64 patients who prepared to undergo extraction of crystalline lenses combined with PC-IOL (Symfony ZXR00, PanOptix TFNT00, or AT LISA tri 839MP) implantation. All eyes underwent ocular biometric measurements with IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam HR, and the interdevice agreement of measurements including total keratometry (TK, IOLMaster 700) and total corneal refractive power (TCRP, Pentacam HR) was evaluated. IOL power calculations were performed using TK-based Barrett TK Universal II and TCRP-based Barrett Universal II calculations, respectively.

Results

Paired t-tests showed that the differences in white-to-white diameter, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and mean TK between IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam HR were slight but significant (all P<0.05), and the differences in recommended IOL power for emmetropia between two Barrett calculations were also significant in 3 PC-IOLs (all P<0.05). The ROC curve showed that the AUC was 0.917 (95% CI, 0.820-0.971) for the absolute value of the difference between TK and TCRP in discriminating the difference of ≥ ±0.5 D in predicted IOL power with best cutoff values of 0.4 D.

Conclusion

The novel Barrett TK Universal II formula built in IOLMaster 700 is comparable to TCRP-based Barrett Universal II calculation for IOL power calculation of PC-IOLs, and the convenience of using the Barrett TK Universal II formula should be founded on measurement consistency between devices.

Comparison of Pre- and Post-DMEK Keratometry and Total Keratometry Values for IOL Power Calculations in Eyes Undergoing Triple DMEK

PURPOSE

To evaluate prediction accuracy of pre- and post-DMEK keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) values for IOL power calculations in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) eyes undergoing DMEK with cataract surgery (triple DMEK).

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional multicenter study of 55 FECD eyes (44 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2022 between two centers in USA and Europe. Swept-source optical coherence tomography biometry (IOLMaster 700) was used for pre- and post-DMEK measurements. K and TK values were used for power calculations with ten formulae (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay I, Kane, and SRK/T). Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation, and percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Studied formulae were additionally adjusted using a method published previously (IOLup1D Method), which increases the IOL power by 1D. While both eyes from the same patient were considered for descriptive statistics, we restricted to one eye per individual (44 eyes for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

MAEs for all formulae were lower for post-DMEK K and TK than pre-DMEK K and TK by an average of 0.24 and 0.47 D, respectively. The lowest MAE was 0.49 D for Kane using post-DMEK TK, and the highest MAE was 1.05 D for BUII using pre-DMEK TK. Most IOLup1D formulae had lower MAEs than pre-DMEK K and TK formulae.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOLup1D Method should be used instead of pre-DMEK K and TK values for triple DMEK in FECD eyes. Using post-DMEK TK values for cataract surgery after DMEK provides better refractive accuracy than any of the three studied methods used for triple DMEK procedures.

Accuracy of toric intraocular lens power calculation depending on different keratometry values using a novel network based software platform

Purpose

To compare different corneal keratometry readings (swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry and Scheimpflug imaging) with a novel software platform for calculation of toric intraocular lenses.

Setting

Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.

Design

Retrospective, non-randomized, clinical trial.

Methods

Twenty-three eyes undergoing toric intraocular lens implantation were included. Inclusion criteria were preoperative regular corneal astigmatism of at least 1.00 D, no previous refractive surgery, no ocular surface diseases and no maculopathies. Lens exchange was performed with CALLISTO eye (Zeiss). For each patient, the expected postoperative residual refraction was calculated depending on three different corneal parameters of two different devices: standard K-front (K) and total keratometry (TK) obtained by a swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry system (IOL Master 700, Zeiss) as well as total corneal refractive power (TCRP) obtained by a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam AXL, Oculus). Barrett's formula for toric intraocular lenses was used for all calculations within a novel software platform (EQ workplace, Zeiss FORUM®). Results were statistically compared with postoperative refraction calculated according to the Harris dioptric power matrix.

Results

The standard K values (mean PE 0.02 D ± 0.45 D) and TK values (mean PE 0.09 D ± 0.43 D) of the IOL Master 700 reached similar results (p = 0.96). 78% of eyes in both K and TK groups achieved SE within ±0.5 D of attempted correction and all eyes (100%) were within ±1.0 D of attempted correction in both groups. By contrast, the prediction error in the IOL calculation using the TCRP of the Scheimpflug device was significantly greater (mean PE -0.56 D ± 0.49 D; p = 0.00 vs. standard K and p = 0.00 vs. TK) with adjusted refractive indices. Thirty-nine and Ninety-one percentage of eyes in the TCRP group achieved SE within ±0.5 D (p = 0.008 K vs. TCRP and p = 0.005 TK vs. TCRP) and ± 1.0 D (p = 0.14 vs. TCRP) of attempted correction, respectively.

Conclusion

All three corneal parameters (standard K, TK, TCRP) performed well in calculating toric IOLs. The most accurate refractive outcomes in toric IOL implantation were achieved by IOL calculations based on swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry. The SS-OCT-based K-front and TK values achieve comparable results in the calculation of toric IOLs.

Differences Between Keratometry and Total Keratometry Measurements in a Large Dataset Obtained With a Modern Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the concept of total keratometry (TK) by analyzing extensive international datasets representing diverse ethnic backgrounds. The primary objective was to quantify the disparities between traditional keratometry (K) and TK values in normal eyes and assess their impact on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using various formulas.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter intra-instrument reliability analysis.

METHODS

The study involved the analysis of biometry data collected from ten international centers across Europe, the United States, and Asia. Corneal power was expressed as equivalent power and astigmatic vector components for both K and TK values. The study assessed the influence of these differences on IOL power calculations using different formulas. The results were analyzed and plotted using Bland-Altman and double angle plots.

RESULTS

The study encompassed a total of 116,982 measurements from 57,862 right eyes and 59,120 left eyes. The analysis revealed a high level of agreement between K and TK values, with 93.98% of eyes exhibiting an absolute difference of 0.25 D or less. Astigmatism vector differences exceeding 0.25 D and 0.50 D were observed in 39.43% and 1.08% of eyes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This large-scale study underscores the similarity between mean K and TK values in healthy eyes, with rare clinical implications for IOL power calculation. Noteworthy differences were observed in astigmatism values between K and TK. Future investigations should delve into the practicality of TK values for astigmatism correction and their implications for surgical outcomes.

Predictive accuracy of Barrett TK toric calculator compared to measured posterior corneal astigmatism using Pentacam in toric IOL power calculation

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive accuracy of Barrett total keratometry (Barrett TK) toric calculator with the measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) by using Pentacam in toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was done on 118 eyes requiring toric IOL power implantation. The absolute prediction error of the Barrett TK toric calculator and the measured PCA in the online toric calculator were assessed and compared to the standard Alcon toric calculator (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated).

RESULTS

The mean absolute prediction error of the online toric calculator (0.32 D) (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated), Barrett TK Toric (0.34 D), and measured PCA of Pentacam in Barrett toric calculator (0.33 D) were found to be similar with no statistically significant difference. Subanalysis in eyes with with-the-rule astigmatism, against-the-rule astigmatism, and oblique astigmatism showed similar results. Alpins analysis showed that all three methods overcorrected corneal astigmatism.

CONCLUSION

The Barrett TK toric calculator and the measured PCA of Pentacam in the Barrett toric calculator have similar predictive accuracy to the online toric calculator (with Barrett toric calculator incorporated).

Calculation of the total corneal astigmatism using the virtual cross cylinder method on the secondary principal plane of the cornea

This study aimed to establish a virtual cross cylinder method to calculate the total corneal astigmatism by combining the anterior and posterior corneal astigmatism on the secondary principal plane of the cornea based on Gaussian optics. The meridian with the least refractive power, namely, the flattest meridian of the virtual cross cylinder of a ± 0.5 × C diopter, is set as the reference meridian, and the power (F) at an angle of φ between an arbitrary meridian and the reference meridian is defined as F(φ) =  - 0.5 × C × cos2φ. The magnitude and axis of the total corneal astigmatism were calculated by applying trigonometric functions and the atan2 function based on the combination of the virtual cross cylinders of the anterior corneal astigmatism and the posterior corneal astigmatism. To verify the performance of the virtual cross cylinder method, a verification experiment with two Jackson cross cylinders and a lensmeter was performed, and the measured and calculated values were compared. The limit of the natural domain of the arctangent function is circumvented by using the atan2 function. The magnitude and axis of the total corneal astigmatism are determined through generalized mathematical expressions. The verification experiment results showed good agreement between the measured and calculated values. Compared to the vector analysis method, the virtual cross cylinder method is mathematically sound and straightforward. A novel technique for calculating total corneal astigmatism, the virtual cross cylinder method, was developed and verified.

The accuracy of the trifocal IOL calculation using equivalent K-readings and total corneal power in different zones

PURPOSE

To identify the equivalent K-readings and total keratometry zones that is optimally suitable for calculating the IOL spheroequivalent according to 7 formulas.

METHODS

The study included 40 patients (40 eyes) who underwent uneventful femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange (RLE) with implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL (PanOptix, Alcon inc.). Targeted emmetropia was achieved in all patients, no distance and near correction was needed. Retrospective IOL calculations were performed utilizing 7 formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1 and 2, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Barrett Universal 2, Olsen) and Pentacam keratometry data: Holladay equivalent K-readings, total optical power by ray tracing (TCRP) centered on the apex and pupil in 10 zones (from 0.5 to 5 mm in 0.5 mm increments). For each formula/zone/map combination: postoperative predicted refraction (PPRs), mean absolute errors (MAEs), and median absolute errors (MedAEs) were analyzed.

RESULTS

According to EKR, the Haigis formula showed the lowest error in the central zones up to 3.5 mm, the TCRP zone for Holladay I and II formulas 4.0-4.5 mm, for HofferQ and SRK/T formulas 4.5-5.0 mm, and for Olsen and Barrett II Universal-5 mm.

CONCLUSION

The use of keratometry data (EKR, TCRP) in the formulas adapted to SimK, with the correct choice of the evaluation zone of keratometric data, will increase the chance of hitting the refractive target.

Refractive Predictability between Standard and Total Keratometry during the Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery with Monofocal Intraocular Lens with Enhanced Intermediate Function

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula using the standard keratometry (K) and total K (TK) during the femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with a monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function using currently used formulas.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 125 eyes from 125 patients who had undergone FLACS with implantation of monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function was conducted. The predicted refractive power was calculated using an optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) according to the K and TK in the Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay 2 formulas. Absolute prediction error (APE) obtained from the actual postoperative refractive outcomes and the refractive error predicted in each formula was compared one month after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean APE ranged between 0.29 and 0.39 diopters (D) regardless of the calculation formula and the method of measuring corneal curvature. Significant differences were observed in the APE from the four formulas and the two keratometric measurements (p = 0.014). In a total of 125 eyes from 125 patients, the mean APE was lowest with the Barrett Universal II formula. Across all formulas, both the mean APE and the median APE tended to be lower for K than for TK, although there was no significant difference. Approximately 70% to 80% of the patients were included within 0.5 D of the refractive error across all formulas. The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of APE outcomes was not statistically different between the K and TK data when using each formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Keratometric measurements considering the poster corneal curvature did not show any additional advantages when implanting the monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function during the FLACS.

Performance of IOL calculation formulas that use measured posterior corneal power in eyes following myopic laser vision correction

PURPOSE

To compare the predictive accuracy of the biometer-embedded Barrett True-K TK and new total corneal power methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with prior laser vision correction (LVC) for myopia.

SETTING

Academic clinical practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

IOL power formulas were assessed using measurements from a swept-source optical coherence biometer. Refractive prediction errors were calculated for the Barrett True-K TK, EVO 2.0, Pearl-DGS, and HofferQST, which use both anterior and posterior corneal curvature measurements. These were compared with the Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K No History (NH), optical coherence tomography, and 4-formula average (AVG-4) on the ASCRS postrefractive calculator, and to the Holladay 1 and 2 with non linear axial length regressions (H1- and H2-NLR).

RESULTS

The study comprised 85 eyes from 85 patients. Only the Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 had mean numerical errors that were not significantly different from 0. The EVO 2.0, Barrett True-K TK, Pearl-DGS, AVG-4, H2-NLR, and Barrett True-K NH were selected for further pairwise analysis. The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 demonstrated smaller root-mean-square absolute error compared with the Pearl-DGS, and the Barrett True-K TK also had a smaller mean absolute error than the Pearl-DGS.

CONCLUSIONS

The Barrett True-K TK and EVO 2.0 formulas had comparable performance to existing formulas in eyes with prior myopic LVC.

Optimization of biometry for best refractive outcome in cataract surgery

High-precision biometry and accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation have become essential components of cataract surgery. In clinical practice, IOL power calculation involves measuring parameters such as corneal power and axial length and then applying a power calculation formula. The importance of posterior corneal curvature in determining the true power of the cornea is increasingly being recognized, and newer investigative modalities that can estimate both the anterior and posterior corneal power are becoming the standard of care. Optical biometry, especially using swept-source biometers, with an accuracy of 0.01-0.02 mm, has become the state-of-the-art method in biometry. With the evolution of IOL formulas, the ultimate goal of achieving a given target refraction has also moved closer to accuracy. However, despite these technological efforts to standardize and calibrate methods of IOL power calculation, achieving a mean absolute error of zero for every patient undergoing cataract surgery may not be possible. This is due to inherent consistent bias and systematic errors in the measurement devices, IOL formulas, and the individual bias of the surgeon. Optimization and personalization of lens constants allow for the incorporation of these systematic errors as well as individual bias, thereby further improving IOL power prediction accuracy. Our review provides a comprehensive overview of parameters for accurate biometry, along with considerations to enhance IOL power prediction accuracy through optimization and personalization. We conducted a detailed search in PubMed and Google Scholar by using a combination of MeSH terms and specific keywords such as "ocular biometry," "IOL power calculations," "prediction accuracy of refractive outcome in cataract surgery," "effective lens position," "intraocular lens calculation formulas," and "optimization of A-constants" to find relevant literature. We identified and analyzed 121 relevant articles, and their findings were included.

Characteristics of surgically induced astigmatism after standardized microincisional cataract surgery with a superior limbal incision

PURPOSE

To determine (1) if measurements of surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) as measured by keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) differ (2) if SIA affects the magnitude and/or meridian of keratometric astigmatism (3) if SIA evolves over time.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis.

METHODS

A swept-source optical coherence tomography biometry dataset (IOLMaster700) consisting of 498 eyes (327 patients) from a tertiary care center was analyzed. For all eyes preoperative and postoperative biometric measurements at 1-month, 3-month, and 6-months postoperative visits were considered for vector analysis of SIA K and SIA TK .

RESULTS

Centroids in right and left eyes were 0.26 diopters (D) @5 degrees/0.31 D @1 degree for SIA K and 0.27 D @4 degrees/0.34 D @1 degree for SIA TK . Centroids for difference vectors K-TK in right and left eyes were 0.02 D @ 176 degrees/0.03 D @6 degrees. The mean SIA magnitudes in right and left eyes were 0.48 ± 0.41 D and 0.50 ± 0.37 D for SIA K and 0.53 ± 0.42 D and 0.54 ± 0.40 D for SIA TK . In eyes with ATR astigmatism, an increase in postoperative astigmatism magnitude was more common than a decrease. More than 30% of eyes showed changes in the meridian of more than 15 degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we observed differences in K- and TK-derived SIA, and changes in SIA magnitude over time. For postsurgical interventions, postoperative astigmatism meridian values should be measured to base treatments. Astigmatism magnitude showed a tendency to decrease for steep-meridian incisions and to increase in flat-meridian incisions.

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

PURPOSE

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

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized Trial Comparing Prediction Accuracy of Two Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers

Purpose

To compare the prediction accuracy of the Argos biometer using standard keratometry to the prediction accuracy of the IOLMaster 700 biometer using Total Keratometry.

Methods

This was a randomized, prospective, single surgeon study of 80 right eyes of 80 patients that had preoperative biometry with both the Argos and IOLMaster 700 devices, followed by cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Prediction errors (directional and absolute) for each device were determined from the 1 month postoperative manifest refraction.

Results

The directional prediction error was 0.07 ± 0.32 D for the Argos and 0.08 ± 0.34 D for the IOLMaster 700. The mean of the difference in prediction error (directional) was 0.02 D, which was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The absolute prediction error was 0.21 ± 0.25 D for the Argos and 0.25 ± 0.24 D for the IOLMaster 700. The mean of the difference in absolute prediction error was 0.04 D, which was statistically significant (p < 0.004) but not clinically significant. The percentage of eyes with absolute prediction error ≤ 0.5 D was 91% (73 eyes) for the Argos and 88% (70 eyes) for the IOLMaster 700. This difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

The prediction accuracies were similar between the Argos and IOLMaster 700 in eyes with normal axial length. There was a significant difference in mean absolute prediction error between devices; however, this was not clinically meaningful.

Comparing Predictive Accuracy of a Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer and an Optical Low Coherence Reflectometry Biometer

Purpose

To compare the refractive accuracy resulting from calculations based on measurements with a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer compared to calculations based on measurements with an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometer at one month postoperatively.

Methods

This was a retrospective comparative non-interventional study of preoperative biometry and postoperative refraction and visual acuity of 200 eyes. All eyes had preoperative biometry with both the Argos (Movu, a Santec company) and Lenstar LS900 (Haag-Streit AG) devices. Data were collected for mean postoperative prediction error (directional and absolute), preoperative mean K, delta K (corneal astigmatism), axial length, and anterior chamber depth.

Results

The mean directional prediction error was -0.15 ± 0.47 D for Argos and -0.31 ± 0.50 D for Lenstar LS900, and there was a statistically significant mean of the differences (0.16 ± 0.24 D; p < 0.001). The mean absolute prediction error was 0.35 ± 0.34 D for Argos and 0.42 ± 0.41 D for Lenstar LS900, and there was a statistically significant mean of the differences (-0.07 ± 0.24 D; p < 0.001). Neither the differences in directional prediction error nor the differences in absolute prediction error were clinically significant.

Conclusion

The directional and absolute prediction accuracies were statistically significant, but not clinically different between the Argos and Lenstar LS900 devices. In addition, differences between preoperative K, AL, and ACD measurements were not clinically significant.

Comparison of biometry measurements and intraocular lens power prediction between 2 SS-OCT-based biometers

PURPOSE

To evaluate the agreement in biometry measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction between the Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700.

SETTING

Institutional.

DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

METHODS

Patients were evaluated before cataract surgery using both devices on the same visit. Axial length, anterior and posterior keratometry, anterior chamber depth, corneal diameter (CD), central corneal thickness, and lens thickness were recorded by both devices. The agreement in measurements and in IOL power calculations was evaluated using the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula with either predicted or measured posterior keratometry.

RESULTS

In total, 402 eyes of 402 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 72.0 ± 9.2 years. Clinically, mean differences in measured variables were small, albeit slightly larger for posterior flat and steep keratometry (0.43 diopters [D] and 0.42 D, respectively). The measurement correlation and agreement between the devices were good for all variables with slightly lower agreement in CD measurements. Consistent bias was seen in measurements of posterior flat and steep keratometry. Good agreement was also found in anterior and posterior astigmatism measurements. Good IOL power calculation agreement was found using either predicted posterior keratometry (95% limits of agreement [LoA] of -0.40 to +0.30 D) or measured posterior keratometry (95% LoA of -0.45 to +0.40 D). The agreement was within ±0.5 D in 394 eyes (98.0%) using predicted posterior keratometry and in 386 eyes (96.0%) using measured posterior keratometry.

CONCLUSIONS

The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show strong agreement in biometry measurements and IOL power prediction by the BU-II formula using either standard or total corneal keratometry and can be used interchangeably.

SS-OCT-based ocular biometry in an adult Korean population with cataract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the characteristics of ocular biometric parameters in adult Korean patients with cataract.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Ocular biometric values of 5273 eyes of 5273 Korean patients undergoing cataract surgery measured with the IOLMaster 700 at the Seoul National University Hospital between November 2019 and December 2021 were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 5273 eyes of 5273 Korean patients were analyzed. The mean ± SD age was 66.1 ± 12.8 years, and 62% were female. Overall, age and ocular biometric parameters were correlated with each other. Particularly, age showed a negative correlation with anterior chamber depth (ACD; r = -0.357), axial length (AL; r = -0.344), and posterior keratometry (PK; r = -0.054) and a positive correlation with lens thickness (LT; r = 0.484), angle α ( r = 0.194), total keratometry (TK; r = 0.137), anterior keratometry (AK; r = 0.129), and angle κ ( r = 0.071). AL showed a positive correlation with ACD ( r = 0.503) and PK ( r = 0.339) and a negative correlation with AK ( r = -0.342), TK ( r = -0.334), LT ( r = -0.288), angle α ( r = -0.220), and angle κ ( r = -0.040). With age, anterior and total corneal astigmatism changed from with-the-rule (WTR) to against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism. Posterior corneal astigmatism was ATR regardless of age; however, the magnitude decreased with age.

CONCLUSIONS

Age showed a significant correlation in the order of LT, ACD, and AL. With age, angle α and κ increased, and total corneal astigmatism changes from WTR to ATR, which is mainly affected by changes in anterior corneal astigmatism. AL showed a significant correlation in the order of ACD, AK, PK, and TK. These data are pertinent for improving the result after cataract surgery, especially when using premium intraocular lenses.

The CRW1 Index: Identification of Eyes with Previous Myopic Laser Vision Correction Using Only a Swept-Source OCT Biometer

PURPOSE

To develop and test a novel index (Cooke-Riaz-Wendelstein [CRW1]) that uses swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometry measurements (IOLMaster700, Zeiss Meditec), including total keratometry, to alert clinicians that previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC) was present in a measured eye.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicenter, comparative diagnostic analysis.

METHODS

The study took place at 6 centers in the United States and Austria. Anonymized SS-OCT biometry datasets acquired between 2018 and 2020 and containing 49,199 eyes were analyzed. The LVC status, as identified by the biometrist, was used to segregate eyes into LVC and non-LVC eyes. Data were split into training (10,780 eyes) and validation (38,419 eyes) sets. Subset analysis was performed for CRW1 Index accuracy compared to posterior/anterior corneal curvature ratio (R_post/R_ant), topography with corneal analysis software (Atlas 9000 with Pathfinder II, Zeiss Meditec), tomography (Pentacam, Oculus), dual Scheimpflug-Placido system (Galilei G6, Ziemer), and a cloud-based platform for cataract surgery planning (Veracity, Zeiss Meditec). A positive predictive value (PPV) of ≥90% was targeted for the CRW1 index. True positives, true negatives, sensitivity, and specificity were recorded.

RESULTS

The CRW1 Index compared favorably against R_post/R_ant showing a higher PPV (93% vs 65%), with fewer false-positive results (29 vs 180). CRW1 performed similarly to topography software and better than the corneal imaging devices. The CRW1 cutoff value can be adjusted to increase sensitivity (CRW1-IS) to detect additional M-LVC eyes.

CONCLUSIONS

The CRW1 and CRW1-IS indices offer surgeons and researchers a readily accessible method to use only SS-OCT biometry measurements to detect eyes with a high probability of previous M-LVC.

Agreement of Total Keratometry and Posterior Keratometry Among IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare total keratometry (TK) and posterior keratometry (PK) obtained by two swept-source optical biometers (IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2) and one Scheimpflug-based topography (Pentacam AXL).

Methods

The TK and PK in cataract surgery candidates obtained by IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL were compared. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), limit of agreement, and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the agreement.

Results

One hundred two patients with a mean age of 68.21 ± 8.70 years were included. There were significant differences among IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL in the mean TK (TKm) (44.23 ± 1.59 diopters [D] vs. 43.25 ± 1.53 D vs. 43.94 ± 1.68 D; all P < 0.001), mean PK (PKm; -5.90 ± 0.24 D vs. -6.25 ± 0.25 D vs. -6.37 ± 0.26 D; all P < 0.001) and TK-J0 (-0.34 ± 0.65 D vs. -0.23 ± 0.53 D vs. -0.12 ± 0.62 D; all P < 0.001). We also observed significant differences in PK-J45 between IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL as well as between CASIA2 and Pentacam AXL (both P < 0.001). There was a good agreement in TKm, TK-J0, TK-J45, and PK-J0 (ICC = 0.887, 0.880, 0.751, and 0.807, respectively), a moderate agreement in PK-J45 (ICC = 0.626), and a poor agreement in PKm (ICC = 0.498) among these 3 biometers.

Conclusions

TK, PK, and the corresponding astigmatism obtained by IOLMaster 700, CASIA2, and Pentacam AXL showed significant differences, and could not be used interchangeably.

Translational Relevance

Our study may help to guide preoperative keratometry measurement for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation and astigmatism evaluation for patients with cataract.

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Based on Total Keratometry in Patients With Flat and Steep Corneas

PURPOSE

To analyze the accuracy of the current intraocular lens power calculation formulas using standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) data in patients with flat and steep corneas.

DESIGN

Retrospective consecutive cross-sectional study.

METHODS

An optical biometer with swept-source optical coherence tomography was used in this retrospective study. The standard deviation (SD), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the proportion of eyes with prediction error (PE) within ±0.25 diopter (D), ±0.5 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were calculated to evaluate the refractive outcomes of each formula.

RESULTS

A total of 231 eyes from 231 patients were included. In the entire study cohort, the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) formula using TK data showed the lowest SD (0.383) and MAE (0.30) and the highest percentage of cases with a PE within ±0.5 D (81.4%). In the flat keratometry group, the EVO (P = .042), Haigis (P = .043), Hoffer Q (P = .038) and Holladay 1 (P = .013) formulas using TK data had significantly lower SD than using K data. The EVO formula using TK data showed the lowest SD (0.357) and MAE (0.28). In the steep keratometry group, the Hoffer Q (P = .036) and SRK/T (P = .029) formulas using TK data had significantly lower SD than using K data. The BUII TK formula showed the lowest SD (0.431), MedAE (0.26), and MAE (0.32).

CONCLUSION

The TK data set showed a better trend of refractive outcomes, especially in the flat and steep keratometry groups. EVO (TK) and BUII TK formulas were suggested for eyes with K values lower than 42 D and K values higher than 46 D, respectively.

Standard vs total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery combined with DMEK

PURPOSE

To compare the prediction accuracy of standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (triple DMEK).

SETTING

Tertiary care academic referral center.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

Review of 83 eyes (63 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700). 63 eyes were used for statistical analysis. Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), SD, median absolute error, maximum absolute error, root mean squared prediction error, and the percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.50 diopters (D) and ±1.00 D were calculated for 9 multivariate and third-generation formulas using K and TK values (Barrett Universal II, Yeo EVO 2.0, Cooke K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS, Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T). Formulas were additionally tested by using the prediction for an IOL power 1 D below the IOL used (IOLup1D).

RESULTS

For all formulas, MAE was lower for K than for TK by an average of 0.21 D. The lowest MAE value observed was 0.67 D for "adjusted" SRK/T using K, and the highest MAE values observed were 1.24 D and 1.24 D for nonadjusted Hoffer Q and Haigis using TK, respectively. Overall, lower MAE values were observed for multivariate formulas and SRK/T.

CONCLUSIONS

In triple DMEK eyes, the prediction accuracy of K was higher than that of TK. The most accurate formulas were SRK/T and multivariate formulas using K with the IOLup1D adjustment.

Impact of Total Corneal Astigmatism Estimated With the Abulafia-Koch Formula Versus Measured With a SS-OCT Biometer on the Refractive Outcomes of a Toric Intraocular Lens in Cataract Surgery

PURPOSE

To compare the impact of total corneal astigmatism (TCA) estimated with the Abulafia-Koch formula (TCA^ABU) versus measured by Total Keratometry (TK), swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT) coupled with telecentric keratometry (TCA^TK) on the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation.

METHODS

Two hundred one eyes of 146 patients who underwent cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (XY1AT; HOYA Corporation) were included in this single-center, retrospective study. For each eye, TCA^ABU (estimated from the anterior keratometry values measured with the IOLMaster 700 [Carl Zeiss Meditec AG]) and TCA^TK (measured using TK IOLMaster 700) were entered into the HOYA Toric Calculator. Patients were operated on based on TCA^ABU. For each eye, centroid and mean absolute error in predicted residual astigmatism (EPA) were calculated according to TCA used (TCA^ABU or TCA^TK). The cylinder power and the axis of the posterior chamber IOL were compared.

RESULTS

The mean uncorrected distance visual acuity was 0.07 ± 0.12 logMAR, the mean spherical equivalent was 0.11 ± 0.40 D, and mean residual astigmatism was 0.35 ± 0.36 D. Mean centroid EPA was 0.28 D at 132° with TCA^ABU and 0.35 D at 148° with TCA^TK (P(x) < .001; P(y) < .01). Mean absolute EPA was 0.46 ± 0.32 D with TCA^ABU and 0.50 ± 0.37 D with TCA^TK (P < .01). In the with-the-rule astigmatism subgroup, a deviation from the target of less than 0.50 D was achieved in 68% of eyes with TCA^ABU versus 50% of eyes with TCA^TK. The proposed posterior chamber IOL was different depending on the calculation methods used in 86% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Both calculation methods showed excellent results. However, the predictability error was significantly reduced when TCA^ABU was used compared to TCA^TK measured with the IOLMaster 700 in the whole cohort. Finally, TCA was overestimated by TK in the with-the-rule astigmatism subgroup. [J Refract Surg. 2023;39(3):171-179.].

Comparison of the Predictive Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Phototherapeutic Keratectomy in Granular Corneal Dystrophy Type 2

Granular corneal dystrophy type 2 (GCD2) is an autosomal dominant disease affecting vision. Phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) is advantageous in removing vision-threatening corneal opacities and postponing keratoplasty; however, it potentially disturbs accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in cataract surgery. The myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method with or without the central island has been reported; nevertheless, an optimal method has not yet been established. To compare the predictive accuracy of post-PTK IOL power calculations in GCD2, the retrospective data of 30 eyes from July 2017 to December 2020 were analyzed. All GCD2-affected eyes underwent post-PTK standard cataract surgery using the WaveLight EX500 platform (Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) under a single surgeon. The mean prediction error (MPE) and absolute error (MAE) with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K, Haigis, and SRK/T by standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK), where possible, were analyzed. Barrett Universal II and SRK/T showed significantly superior MPE, and MAE compared with the myopic/hyperopic Haigis-L method. TK was not significantly superior to K in the same formula. In conclusion, this study suggests that these biometries and formulas, especially Barrett Universal II and SRK/T, are potentially useful in IOL power calculation in GCD2 after PTK.

Lower refractive prediction accuracy of total keratometry using intraocular lens formulas loaded onto a swept-source optical biometer

PURPOSE

To compare refractive outcomes calculated using intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas loaded onto the IOLMaster 700 with the employment of anterior keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK).

METHODS

A total of 225 eyes of 225 patients underwent uneventful cataract surgery and implantation of a single model of nontoric monofocal IOL by a single surgeon. All eyes underwent preoperative ocular biometric measurements with the IOLMaster 700. Refractive outcomes, including the mean numerical prediction error (MNE); standard deviation (SD); adjusted mean absolute prediction error (MAE); adjusted median absolute prediction error (MedAE); percentages of eyes with adjusted prediction error (PE) within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, ± 0.75, and ± 1.00 diopter; and IOL Formula Performance Index (FPI), were compared between the K-based formula and the TK-based formula of Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 2, and Hoffer Q. Axial length (short, medium, and long) subgroup analyses and anterior and posterior keratometry (flat, medium, and steep) subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The K-based formula performed better than the TK-based formula in the accuracy of refractive prediction of each IOL calculation formula: BUII-K (FPI 0.690), BUII-TK (0.677), Haigis-K (0.617), Haigis-TK (0.584), SRK/T-K (0.608), SRK/T-TK (0.595), Holladay 2-K (0.419), Holladay 2-TK (0.406), Hoffer Q-K (0.364), and Hoffer Q-TK (0.356). The subgroup analyses of refractive prediction outcomes showed that TK influenced the refractive outcomes in eyes with relatively normal ranges of axial length and anterior keratometry.

CONCLUSIONS

Using TK instead of K leads to lower refractive prediction accuracy of the IOL power calculation formulas loaded on the IOLMaster 700.

The 10,000 Eyes Study: Analysis of Keratometry, Abulafia-Koch regression transformation, and Biometric Eye Parameters Obtained With Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography

PURPOSE

To analyze Abulafia-Koch regression (AKRT), anterior and posterior astigmatism (K and TK), and evaluate biometry data in a large population.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

METHODS

This multicenter (2 tertiary care centers) study analyzed datasets acquired between 2017 and 2020. Axial length (AL), corneal front and back radii (including meridians for K and TK conversion), horizontal corneal diameter, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and central corneal thickness were measured using telecentric keratometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) and AKRT were calculated. Difference vectors between K and TK astigmatism and between AKRT and TK astigmatism were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 10,300 eyes from 6388 patients were assessed. Difference vectors for K and TK were significantly smaller than for AKRT and TK. K measurement showed a configuration of 51.49% of with-the-rule astigmatism and 30.51% against-the-rule astigmatism, TK measurement showed a configuration of 41.60% of with-the-rule astigmatism and 40.21% against-the-rule astigmatism. Mean total astigmatism was -0.94 ± 0.74 dpt. Mean values for AL and CMAL were 23.70 ± 1.39 mm and 23.70 ± 1.34 mm, respectively. Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, horizontal corneal diameter, AL, and age were all correlated with each other.

CONCLUSION

Astigmatism analysis showed less difference between K and TK than between AKRT and TK. There were significantly fewer eyes with with-the-rule astigmatism and more eyes with against-the-rule astigmatism configuration in TK-derived than in K-derived keratometry. The study provides data on gender and generational differences in biometry. Significant intersexual differences in AL and CMAL were observed, with CMAL providing lower standard deviation compared with AL.

Application of total keratometry in ten intraocular lens power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes

Background

The accuracy of using total keratometry (TK) value in recent IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes remained unknown.

Methods

Highly myopic patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were prospectively enrolled in this prospective comparative study. At one month postoperatively, standard deviation (SD) of the prediction errors (PEs), mean and median absolute error (MedAE) of 103 highly myopic eyes were back-calculated and compared among ten formulas, including XGboost, RBF 3.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Cooke K6, Haigis, SRK/T, and Wang-Koch modifications of Haigis and SRK/T formulas, using either TK or standard keratometry (K) value.

Results

In highly myopic eyes, despite good agreement between TK and K (P > 0.05), larger differences between the two were associated with smaller central corneal thickness (P < 0.05). As to the refractive errors, TK method showed no differences compared to K method. The XGBoost, RBF 3.0 and Kane ranked top three when considering SDs of PEs. Using TK value, the XGboost calculator was comparable with the RBF 3.0 formula (P > 0.05), which both presented smaller MedAEs than others (all P < 0.05). As for the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 0.75 D of PE, the XGBoost TK showed comparable percentages with the RBF 3.0 TK formula (74.76% vs. 66.99%, or 90.29% vs. 87.38%, P > 0.05), and statistically larger percentages than the other eight formulas (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Highly myopic eyes with thinner corneas tend to have larger differences between TK and K. The XGboost enhancement calculator and RBF 3.0 formula using TK showed the most promising outcomes in highly myopic eyes.

Cataract surgery outcomes in eyes with previous radial keratotomy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This study shows the visual and refractive outcomes of cataract surgery in patients with previous radial keratotomy (RK).

SUBJECTS/METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of 100 eyes (65 patients) with previous RK who had undergone routine cataract surgery with a monofocal intraocular lens implant (IOL) at Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, United Kingdom, between January 2004 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Mean age at the time of surgery was 59.8 years; 39% eyes had ocular copathology. Best-corrected visual acuity (LogMAR; median, interquartile range) improved from 0.30 (0.22, 0.55) to 0.06 (-0.02, 0.21) in eyes without copathology, and from 0.56 (0.30, 1.00) to 0.20 (0.00, 0.20) in eyes with copathology. Haigis formula (19 eyes) resulted in a median prediction error of -0.31 D (-1.07, +0.05), versus -0.55 D (-1.23, +0.22) for Double-K SRK/T (55 eyes) and +0.93 D (0.20, 2.31) for SRK/T (18 eyes). At the final follow-up, 52.6% eyes were within 0.5 D and 68.4% within 1 D of the predicted spherical equivalent for Haigis, versus 32.7% and 52.7% for Double-K SRK/T, and 27.8% and 38.9% for SRK/T. The most frequent complication was RK incision dehiscence (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the best-corrected visual acuity outcomes compare with the UK national benchmarks, significantly fewer eyes with previous RK achieved the level of unaided distance visual acuity to allow spectacle independence. Surgeons should be aware of the increased likelihood of wound dehiscence and plan surgery accordingly. Haigis formula tended to have a better predictability of the postoperative spherical equivalent and, since introduced, was the preferred choice for IOL calculation in this group of patients.

Comparing Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry Before and After Myopic Corneal Refractive Surgery With a Swept-Source OCT Biometer

Background

More recently, the swept-source OCT biometer-IOLMaster 700 has provided direct total corneal power measurement, named total keratometry. This study aims to evaluate whether standard keratometry (SK) and total keratometry (TK) with IOLMaster 700 can accurately reflect the corneal power changes induced by myopic corneal refractive surgery.

Methods

In this study, the biometric data measured with the swept-source OCT biometer—IOLMaster 700 before and 3 months after the myopic corneal refractive surgery were recorded. The changes of biological parameters, including SK, posterior keratometry (PK), and TK, and the difference between SK and TK were compared. In addition, the changes of SK and TK induced by the surgery were compared with the changes of spherical equivalent at the corneal plane (ΔSEco).

Results

A total of 74 eyes (74 patients) were included. The changes of SK, PK, TK, axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness after refractive surgery were all statistically significant (all p < 0.01), while the change of white-to-white was not (p = 0.075). The difference between SK and TK was −0.03 ± 0.10D before the corneal refractive surgery and increased to −0.78 ± 0.26D after surgery. The changes of SK and the changes of TK induced by the surgery had a good correlation with the changes of SEco (r = 0.97). ΔSK was significantly smaller than ΔSEco, with a difference of −0.65 ± 0.54D (p < 0.01). However, the difference between ΔTK and ΔSEco (0.10 ± 0.50D) was not statistically significant (p = 0.08).

Conclusions

Using SK to reflect the changes induced by the myopic corneal refractive surgery may lead to underestimation, while TK could generate a more accurate result. The new parameter, TK, provided by the IOLMaster 700, appeared to provide an accurate, objective measure of corneal power that closely tracked the refractive change in corneal refractive surgery.

Saving of Time Using a Software-Based versus a Manual Workflow for Toric Intraocular Lens Calculation and Implantation

Background: To determine whether there is a significant saving of time when using a digital cataract workflow for digital data transfer compared to a manual approach of biometry assessment, data export, intraocular lens calculation, and surgery time. Methods: In total, 48 eyes of 24 patients were divided into two groups: 24 eyes were evaluated using a manual approach, whereas another 24 eyes underwent a full digital lens surgery workflow. The primary variables for comparison between both groups were the overall time as well as several time steps starting at optical biometry acquisition until the end of the surgical lens implantation. Other outcomes, such as toric intraocular lens misalignment, reduction of cylinder, surgically induced astigmatism, prediction error, and distance visual acuity were measured. Results: Overall, the total diagnostic and surgical time was reduced from 1364.1 ± 202.6 s in the manual group to 1125.8 ± 183.2 s in the digital group (p < 0.001). The complete time of surgery declined from 756.5 ± 82.3 s to 667.3 ± 56.3 (p < 0.0005). Compared to the manual approach of biometric data export and intraocular lens calculation (76.7 ± 12.3 s) as well as the manual export of the reference image to a portable external storage device (26.8 ± 5.5 s), a highly significant saving of time was achieved (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Using a software-based digital approach to toric intraocular lens implantation is convenient, more efficient, and thus more economical than a manual workflow in surgery practice.

Inverse Hartmann test for radius of curvature measurement in a corneal topography calibration sphere

In this article, the use of a square Hartmann screen test to measure the radius of curvature of a corneal topography calibration test sphere is presented. The proposed technique is based on the image formation principle by specular reflection on convex reflective surfaces. Applying an inverse Hartmann test, a de-magnified virtual image (Hartmanngram) is obtained; considering their own scaled reference screen plate, a zonal wavefront retrieval approach is used and the radius of curvature obtained. Experimental setup along the obtained results is presented. A simulated spherical wavefront is used as a method to evaluate the error in the wavefront reconstruction. Since the measurements of radius of curvature fits in to ISO 10343, through suitable modifications the proposed method is potentially applicable in small F/# convex specular surfaces, as is the case in keratometry and corneal topography measurements.

Agreement in anterior segment measurements between swept-source and Scheimpflug-based optical biometries in keratoconic eyes: a pilot study

Background:

Cataract surgery in keratoconic patients is challenging because of the corneal distortion, which can lead to inaccurate keratometry readings. This study is a comparison of the accuracy of keratometry readings by two types of devices in a tertiary hospital.

Purpose:

To evaluate the comparability of corneal power measurements, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and white-to-white (WTW) distance between Scheimpflug-based tomography (Pentacam AXL; OCULUS GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) and swept-source optical biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) in patients with keratoconus.

Methods:

This pilot, prospective, interinstrument reliability study included 30 keratoconic eyes of 15 individuals who had not undergone any kind of corneal surgery. Standard K and total refractive power (TK^®) of the flattest and steepest axes of the IOLMaster 700 were compared with the standard keratometry (SimK), true net power (TNP), equivalent keratometer readings (EKR), and total corneal refractive power (TCRP) of the Pentacam. The Bland–Altman analysis was used to evaluate the agreement between the measurements of both devices. The paired-samples t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed to compare the mean values of the variables obtained with the devices.

Results:

The K1 value of the IOLMaster 700 was significantly higher from EKR K1 along the 3-mm (mean difference: 0.79 diopters, p = 0.01), 4-mm (mean difference: 1.01 D, p = 0.01), and 4.5-mm zones (mean difference: 1.20 D, p = 0.01) and TNP K1 along the 3-mm (mean difference: 0.88 D, p < 0.001) and 4-mm zones (mean difference: 0.97 D, p < 0.001). The TK1 value was significantly higher from EKR K1 along the 2-mm (mean difference: 0.42 D, p = 0.04), 3-mm (mean difference: 0.83 D, p = 0.003), 4-mm (mean difference: 1.05 D, p = 0.004), and 4.5-mm zones (mean difference: 1.24 D, p = 0.005) and TNP K1 along the 3-mm (mean difference: 0.92 D, p < 0.001) and 4-mm zones (mean difference: 1.01 D, p < 0.001). The K2 value of the IOLMaster 700 was significantly higher from TK2 (mean difference: 0.11 D, p = 0.04) and all the corresponding variables of the Pentacam device. The TK2 value was significantly higher from all the corresponding variables of the Pentacam device. The Pentacam also yielded significantly lower values for the WTW distance (mean difference: 0.31 mm, p < 0.001) and no significant difference in terms of ACD values (p = 0.9).

Conclusion:

The IOLMaster measured significantly greater keratometry readings in the steep axis for all the variables studied. The keratometry and WTW measurements of the investigated devices cannot be used interchangeably in keratoconus.

Advancements in intraocular lens power calculation formulas

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review recent studies comparing intraocular lens (IOL) formulas with an emphasis on selection of the highest performing formulas based on patient axial length, age, and history of previous corneal refractive surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Barrett Universal II formula based on a theoretical model has consistently demonstrated high accuracy. The Olsen four-factor formula using ray tracing optics and the Hill-RBF calculator using artificial intelligence have also demonstrated good prediction results after being updated. Notably, the Kane formula, incorporating artificial intelligence, has overall shown the best performance for all axial lengths. Although newly developed and updated IOL formulas have improved refractive prediction in patients with short or long axial length eyes or prior history of corneal refractive surgery, these challenging cases still require special consideration. The Barrett True-K formula has shown accurate results regardless of preoperative data in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery.

SUMMARY

Advancements in optical biometry and IOL calculation formulas continue to improve refractive outcomes. The clinician can optimize refractive outcomes in the majority of patients with the use of formulas that have shown consistent results and accuracy in several large studies.

Evaluating the prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula using a heteroscedastic statistical method

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3 formula, with and without direct measurements of total corneal power, using a heteroscedastic statistical method for analysis.

SETTING

Department of Ophthalmology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.

DESIGN

Retrospective, consecutive case series.

METHODS

Records of consecutive patients who underwent routine cataract surgery between February 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula was compared with that of the Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Haigis, Hill-RBF 2.0, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Kane, Olsen, and SRK/T formulas, based on biometry measurements by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) with standard keratometry (K), SS-OCT with total keratometry (TK), and an optical low-coherence reflectometer (OLCR). Statistical analysis was applied according to a heteroscedastic statistical method with SD of prediction errors as the main parameter for formula performance.

RESULTS

The study included 153 eyes of 153 patients. The SD values that were obtained by Hill-RBF 3.0 (0.266 to 0.285 diopters [D]) were significantly lower compared with those by Hill-RBF 2.0 (0.290 to 0.309 D), Hoffer Q (0.387 to 0.407 D), Holladay 1 (0.367 to 0.385 D), Holladay 2 (0.386 to 0.401 D), and SRK/T (0.377 to 0.399 D) formulas (P < .036). The prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 was similar across the SS-OCT (K), SS-OCT (TK), and OLCR methods of measurement (P > .51).

CONCLUSIONS

The Hill-RBF 3.0 was more accurate than the Hill-RBF 2.0 and older generation formulas and had similar prediction accuracy compared with new generation formulas. The use of TK did not provide significant improvement to its prediction accuracy.

Refractive prediction by various intraocular lens formulas using optical biometry and effect of ocular parameters on their accuracy

Purpose:

To assess the prediction accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) formulas and study the effect of axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and lens thickness (LT) on the accuracy of formulas using optic biometry.

Methods:

This study was performed on 164 eyes of 164 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery. Ocular biometry values were measured using Lenstar-900, and intraocular lens (IOL) power was calculated using the SRK/T, SRK II, Hoffer Q, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas. We evaluated the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements and explored the relationship between the prediction error and the ocular parameters by using various IOL formulas.

Results:

The summarization of refractive prediction error and absolute prediction error for each IOL formulation was performed after adjusting the mean refractive error to zero. The deviation in the error values was minimum for SRK/T (0.265) followed by Holladay 2 (0.327) and Barret (0.382). Further, SRK/T had the lowest median (0.15) and mean (0.198) absolute error as compared to other formulations. For the above formulations, 100% of the eyes were in the diopter range of ±1.0. It was observed that the overall distribution of error was closer to zero for SRK/T, followed by Holladay 2 and then Barrett.

Conclusion:

In summary, we found that accuracy was better in SRK/T formula. We achieved a better understanding of how each variable in the formulas is relatively weighed and the influencing factors in the refraction prediction.

Comparison of Corneal Power Calculation by Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry in Eyes With Previous Myopic FS-LASIK

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of Total Keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) with the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) in evaluating the corneal refractive change in eyes with previous myopic femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK).

METHODS

A series of consecutive patients who had undergone myopic FS-LASIK was prospectively enrolled. The refractive change in spherical equivalent (ΔSE) was defined as the difference between the preoperative target correction entered into the laser software and the postoperative cycloplegic refraction. The difference between the postoperative and the preoperative K (ΔK) and the difference between the postoperative and the preoperative TK (ΔTK) were compared to the ΔSE. Only the right eye of each patient was selected for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five eyes of 25 patients were enrolled. The mean ΔSE was -4.41 ± 1.68 diopters (D). The mean ΔK (-3.82 ± 1.60 D) revealed a statistically significant underestimation of the laser-induced refractive change (P < .0001), whereas the mean ΔTK (-4.36 ± 1.78 D) did not show any significant difference (P = .45). The difference between ΔK and ΔTK was statistically significant (P < .0001). Linear regression between the laser-induced refractive change and the individual difference between the postoperative K and TK disclosed a statistically significant relationship (r = -0.6930, r² = 0.4803, P < .0001), thus revealing that higher refractive corrections increase the difference between the postoperative values of K and TK.

CONCLUSIONS

TK does not underestimate the laser-induced corneal changes and can be considered a reliable option for intraocular lens power calculation after myopic excimer laser surgery. [J Refract Surg. 2021;37(12):848-852.].

Refractive Accuracy of Barrett True-K vs Intraoperative Aberrometry for IOL Power Calculation in Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes

Purpose

To compare the refractive predictability of intraoperative aberrometry (IA, ORA, Alcon) and Barrett True-K/Universal II formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes.

Methods

Retrospective study of normal and post-corneal refractive surgery eyes that underwent cataract surgery with IA at tertiary academic center. Preoperatively, IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (normal eyes) or Barrett True-K (post-corneal refractive surgery eyes) formulas. Intraoperatively, aphakic IA measurements were used for IOL power calculations. Mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated. Refractive predictability was also evaluated in short, normal, and long eyes.

Results

Two hundred and seventy-three eyes were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the MAE of preoperative formulas and IA for post-hyperopic laser vision correction (LVC), post-myopic LVC, post-radial keratotomy (RK) and normal eyes. For prediction error within ±0.5 D in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes, range of agreement between Barrett True-K and IA ranged from 28% (7/25) of the time in post-RK eyes to 49% (40/81) of the time in post-hyperopic LVC; the corresponding value for Barrett Universal II/IA was 62% (64/103) in normal eyes. When there was disagreement, IA outperformed Barrett True-K in post-hyperopic LVC eyes and Barrett formula outperformed IA in post-myopic LVC, post-RK, and normal eyes.

Conclusion

IA appears to be comparable to Barrett formulas for IOL power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. In post-hyperopic LVC, IA yields better results compared to Barrett True-K formula; in real-life scenarios, IA reveals statistical advantage over the Barrett True-K no history formula for eyes post-hyperopic LVC.

Comparing prediction accuracy between total keratometry and conventional keratometry in cataract surgery with refractive multifocal intraocular lens implantation

We aimed to compare refractive outcomes between total keratometry using a swept-source optical biometer and conventional keratometry in cataract surgery with refractive multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. We included patients who underwent cataract surgery with refractive multifocal IOL implantation. The IOL power was calculated using conventional formulas (Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II) as well as a new formula (Barrett TK Universal II). The refractive mean error, mean absolute error, and median absolute error were compared, as were the proportions of eyes within ± 0.25 diopters (D), ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D of prediction error. In total 543 eyes of 543 patients, the absolute prediction error of total keratometry was significantly higher than that of conventional keratometry using the SRK/T (P = 0.034) and Barrett Universal II (P = 0.003). The proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the prediction error using the SRK/T and Barrett Universal II was also significantly higher when using conventional keratometry than total keratometry (P = 0.010 for SRK/T and P = 0.005 for Barrett Universal II). Prediction accuracy of conventional keratometry was higher than that of total keratometry in cataract surgery with refractive multifocal IOL implantation.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Monofocal Toric IOLs Using Digital Tracking and Intraoperative Aberrometry

Purpose

To evaluate clinical outcomes of a toric IOL using digital tracking (DT) and intraoperative aberrometry (IA).

Methods

This was a retrospective, single surgeon study examining 151 eyes of 106 patients. Inclusion criteria were subjects who presented with visually significant cataracts (or as a candidate for clear lens extraction) and were implanted with a toric intraocular lens. Spherical equivalent prediction errors for IA and preoperative planning were calculated and compared. Preoperative and postoperative refractive data and monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were also collected at 3 months postoperatively.

Results

Postoperative actual residual refractive astigmatism with IA was 0.50 D or less in 140 eyes (92.8%) and was 0.50 D or less in 88 eyes (58.3%) with back-calculations based on preoperative planning. The absolute spherical equivalent prediction error was 0.50 D or less in 135 eyes (89.4%) for IA compared to 123 eyes (85.4%) for preoperative planning. Postoperative monocular UDVA was 0.10 logMAR or better in 124 eyes (82.1%) and 0.00 logMAR or better in 90 eyes (59.6%). Postoperative CDVA was 0.10 logMAR or better in 147 eyes (97.4%) and 134 eyes (88.7%) were 0.00 logMAR or better.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate that toric implantation with DT and IA can provide excellent refractive and visual outcomes.

Current Developments in Corneal Topography and Tomography

Introduction: Accurate assessment of the corneal shape is important in cataract and refractive surgery, both in screening of candidates as well as for analyzing postoperative outcomes. Although corneal topography and tomography are widely used, it is common that these technologies are confused. The aim of this study was to present the current developments of these technologies and particularly distinguish between corneal topography and tomography. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were the main resources used to investigate the medical literature. The following keywords were used in various combinations: cornea, corneal, topography, tomography, Scheimpflug, Pentacam, optical coherence tomography. Results: Topography is the study of the shape of the corneal surface, while tomography allows a three-dimensional section of the cornea to be presented. Corneal topographers can be divided into large- and small-cone Placido-based devices, as well as devices with color-LEDs. For corneal tomography, scanning slit or Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography may be employed. In several devices, corneal topography and tomography have been successfully combined with tear-film analysis, aberrometry, optical biometry and anterior/posterior segment optical coherence tomography. Conclusion: There is a wide variety of imaging techniques to obtain corneal power maps. As different technologies are used, it is imperative that doctors involved in corneal surgery understand the science and clinical application of devices for corneal evaluation in depth.