IOL Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using the Haigis and Barrett True-K Formulas

The VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods after radial keratotomy

BACKGROUND

To investigate the accuracy of the VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods in cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS

The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods were collated with nine formulas: Barrett True K (No History), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer Q (Double-K), Holladay 1 (Double-K), Holladay 2 (Double-K), PEARL-DGS (RK), SRK/T (Double-K), and T2 (Double-K). With SS-OCT biometry (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec), data of 78 eyes from 78 patients with previous RK was included. Optimised lens constants were sourced from the IOL Con website. Subjective refraction was obtained at 4 to 5 months postoperatively. The root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were chosen as primary outcomes and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analysed.

RESULTS

Statistical significance (Bootstrap-t test, P < 0.05) was shown by VRF-GL, VRF-L, and Haigis formulas with the lowest RMSAE (0.813 D, 0.816 D and 0.824 D) and MedAE (0.511 D, 0.497 D and 0.533 D) values. The Barrett True K formula was less predictable (0.836 and 0.580, respectively). The VRF-L, VRF-GL, and Haigis achieved the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (52.56%, 50.00%, and 46.15%) and ±1.00 D (79.49%, 79.49%, and 80.77% respectively).

CONCLUSION

The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods demonstrated higher accuracy and were comparable with existing methods in eyes after RK. The Haigis was an alternative option with a higher percentage of eyes with a PE within ±1.00 D (80.77%).

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas.

RESULTS

Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas (P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and enhance IOL power calculation for this patient group.

Theoretical Accuracy of the Raytracing Method for Intraocular Calculation of Lens Power in Myopic Eyes after Small Incision Extraction of the Lenticule

AIM

To evaluate the accuracy of the raytracing method for the calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power in myopic eyes after small incision extraction of the lenticule (SMILE).

METHODS

Retrospective study. All patients undergoing surgery for myopic SMILE between May 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with Scheimpflug tomography optical biometry were eligible for inclusion. Manifest refraction was performed before and 6 months after refractive surgery. One eye from each patient was included in the final analysis. A theoretical model was invited to predict the accuracy of multiple methods of lens power calculation by comparing the IOL-induced refractive error at the corneal plane (IOL-Dif) and the SMILE-induced change of spherical equivalent (SMILE-Dif) before and after SMILE surgery. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-Dif-IOL-Dif. IOL power calculations were performed using raytracing (Olsen Raytracing, Pentacam AXL, software version 1.22r05, Wetzlar, Germany) and other formulae with historical data (Barrett True-K, Double-K SRK/T, Masket, Modified Masket) and without historical data (Barrett True-K no history, Haigis-L, Hill Potvin Shammas PM, Shammas-PL) for the same IOL power and model. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed in different anterior chamber depths, axial lengths, back-to-front corneal radius ratio, keratometry, lens thickness, and preoperative spherical equivalents.

RESULTS

A total of 70 eyes of 70 patients were analyzed. The raytracing method had the smallest mean absolute PE (0.26 ± 0.24 D) and median absolute PE (0.16 D), and also had the largest percentage of eyes within a PE of ± 0.25 D (64.3%), ± 0.50 D (81.4%), ± 0.75 D (95.7%), and ± 1.00 D (100.0%). The raytracing method was significantly better than Double-K SRK/T, Haigis, Haigis-L, and Shammas-PL formulae in postoperative refraction prediction (all p < 0.001), but not better than the following formulae: Barrett True-K (p = 0.314), Barrett True-K no history (p = 0.163), Masket (p = 1.0), Modified Masket (p = 0.806), and Hill Potvin Shammas PM (p = 0.286). Subgroup analysis showed that refractive outcomes exhibited no statistically significant differences in the raytracing method (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Raytracing was the most accurate method in predicting target refraction and had a good consistency in calculating IOL power for myopic eyes after SMILE.

Cataract surgery following refractive surgery: Principles to achieve optical success and patient satisfaction

A growing number of patients with prior refractive surgery are now presenting for cataract surgery. Surgeons face a number of unique challenges in this patient population that tends to be highly motivated to retain or regain functional uncorrected acuity postoperatively. Primary challenges include recognition of the specific type of prior surgery, use of appropriate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas, matching IOL style with spherical aberration profile, the recognition of corneal imaging patterns that are and are not compatible with toric and/or presbyopia-correcting lens implantation, and surgical technique modifications, which are particularly relevant in eyes with prior radial keratotomy or phakic IOL implantation. Despite advancements in IOL power formulae, corneal imaging, and IOL options that have improved our ability to achieve targeted postoperative refractive outcomes, accuracy and predictability remain inferior to eyes that undergo cataract surgery without a history of corneal refractive surgery. Thus, preoperative evaluation of patients who will and will not be candidates for postoperative refractive surgical enhancements is also paramount. We provide an overview of the specific challenges in this population and offer evidence-based strategies and considerations for optimizing surgical outcomes.

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction accuracy of formulas in American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery post-refractive surgery calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction of the formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive calculator in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK) for myopia.

Methods

This retrospective study included 25 eyes of 18 patients whose status was post-RK for treatment of myopia, which had undergone cataract extraction with IOL implantation. Prediction error was calculated as the difference between implanted IOL power and predicted power by various formulae available on ASCRS post-refractive calculator. The formulas compared were Humphrey Atlas method, IOLMaster/Lenstar method, Barrett True-K no-history formula, ASCRS Average power, and ASCRS Maximum power on ASCRS post-refractive calculator.

Results

Median absolute errors were the least for Barrett True-K and ASCRS Maximum power, that is, 0.56 (0.25, 1.04) and 0.56 (0.25, 1.06) D, respectively, and that of Atlas method was 1.60 (0.85, 2.28) D. Median arithmetic errors were positive for Atlas, Barrett True-K, ASCRS Average (0.86 [-0.17, 1.61], 0.14 [-0.22 to 0.54], and 0.23 [-0.054, 0.76] D, respectively) and negative for IOLMaster/Lenstar method and ASCRS Maximum power (-0.02 [-0.46 to 0.38] and - 0.48 [-1.06 to - 0.22] D, respectively). Multiple comparison analysis of Friedman's test revealed that Atlas formula was significantly different from IOLMaster/Lenstar, Barrett True-K, and ASCRS Maximum power; ASCRS Maximum power was significantly different from all others (P < 0.00001).

Conclusion

In post-RK eyes, Barrett True-K no-history formula and ASCRS Maximum power given by the ASCRS calculator were more accurate than other available formulas, with ASCRS Maximum leading to more myopic outcomes when compared to others.

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of multiple traditional and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-radial keratotomy (RK) patients undergoing cataract surgery.

Methods

This retrospective case series included 50 eyes with prior RK who underwent routine phacoemulsification surgery with single-piece acrylic IOL implantation (A constant = 118.8). Outcomes of multiple formulas were calculated. Included formulas were SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett True-K, Haigis and Barrett True-K (target refraction of 0.50 D), Barrett Universal II, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Shammas no history, DK SRK/T, DK SRK/T (target refraction of 0.50 D), Double K (DK) Holladay 1, and DK Holladay 1 (target refraction of 0.50 D). Averages of multiple combinations of best-performing single formulas were calculated. Primary outcome is mean absolute error (MAE).

Results

Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction) and DK SRK/T showed the lowest mean and median absolute errors (MedAE) followed by Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K (with -0.50 D target refraction). Combinations of 3, 4, or 5 of best performing single formulas yielded good results with >60% of cases within +0.50 D of intended refraction and MAE around 0.50 D. The best performing formulas with flatter K readings were PEARL-DGS and Haigis (with additional -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.72 + 0.71 D and 0.70 + 0.70 D, respectively, followed by Barrett True-K (with intended -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.75 + 0.63 D.

Conclusion

Using an average of three or more Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction), the Barrett True-K, DK Holladay 1, and DK SRK/T formulas showed better outcomes than using a single formula for IOLMaster 700 standard K readings. The PEARL-DGS formula showed better accuracy in eyes with flatter K readings (<38 D).

Radial keratotomy and cataract surgery: A quest for emmetropia

A 75-year-old man with an ocular history of 8-cut radial keratotomy (RK) in both eyes presented for cataract surgery evaluation. He was previously correctable in spectacles in years prior despite his irregular corneas to 20/25 in the right eye and 20/30 in the left eye. He recently noticed a change in his overall visual function with significant nighttime glare and difficulty reading despite spectacle correction. Of note, he was unable to tolerate contact lenses and was resistant to refitting despite additional encouragement. Cataract surgery was delayed for many years, given he was correctable in spectacles and the concern of uncovering a highly aberrated cornea after removing his cataracts (Figures 1 and 2JOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202308000-00021/figure1/v/2023-07-21T030437Z/r/image-tiffJOURNAL/jcrs/04.03/02158034-202308000-00021/figure2/v/2023-07-21T030437Z/r/image-tiff). Of note, the patient was interested in returning to the spectacle independence he enjoyed in the past. Ocular examination revealed a corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/60 in the left eye, with a manifest refraction of +4.50 -0.50 × 177 in the right eye and +5.75 -1.75 × 14 in the left eye. Glare testing was 20/50 in the right eye and 20/100 in the left eye, with retinal acuity meter testing of 20/25 in each eye. Pupils, confrontation visual fields, and intraocular pressures were normal. Pertinent slitlamp examination revealed corneal findings of 8-cut RK with nasal-gaping arcuate incisions in both eyes and lens findings of 2+ nuclear sclerosis with 2+ cortical changes in the right eye and 3+ nuclear sclerosis with 3+ cortical changes in the left eye. Cup-to-disc ratios of the optic nerves measured 0.5 with temporal sloping in the right eye and 0.6 with temporal sloping in the left eye. The dilated fundus examination was unremarkable. What intraocular lens (IOL) options would you offer this patient and how would you counsel regarding realistic expectations? What additional diagnostic testing would be helpful in your assessment? How would you calculate the IOLs?

Comparison of the accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of three intraocular lens (IOL) formulas in Chinese cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS

Medical records of cataract patients with prior RK at Beijing Tongren Hospital were retrospectively analysed. The absolute error (AE) was calculated as the absolute difference between the actual postoperative spherical equivalent and the predicted spherical equivalent. The AE and percentages of eyes with AE within 0.5D, 1.0D, and 2.0D for three formulas [Barrett True-K, Holladay 1 (D-K), Haigis] were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Forty-seven eyes of 28 cataract patients were included. The Median AE (MedAE) was significantly different among the three formulas (P < 0.001). The MedAE was lowest for the Barrett True-K formula (0.62), followed by the Haigis (0.76), and Holladay 1 (D-K) (1.16). The percentages of eyes with AE within 0.5D, and 1.0D were significantly different among the 3 formulas (P = 0.009, and P < 0.001). The Barrett True-K formula achieved the highest percentages (46.8%) of eyes with AE within 0.5D. Haigis achieved the highest percentages (70.21%) of eyes with AE within 1.0 D.

CONCLUSIONS

Barrett True-K is the most accurate IOL power calculation formula among the 3 formulas and Haigis is an alternative choice. Considering the relatively lower accuracy of IOL formulas in cataract patients with prior RK, newer and more accurate IOL formulas are desirable.

Double peak axial length measurement signal in cataract patients with epiretinal membrane

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of axial length (AL) measurement for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in patients with cataract and epiretinal membrane (ERM).

METHODS

This prospective, cross-sectional study was performed in cataract patients with ERM. All subjects were sent for standard optical biometry, prepared for cataract surgery. Signals of AL measurement were detected as double peaks and recorded as AL1 (first peak), and AL2 (second peak). The IOL power was calculated from AL1 and AL2, and reported as IOL1 and IOL2. The IOL2 was chosen for cataract surgery in all cases. Postoperative predictive errors were compared between IOL1 and IOL2.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eyes from 37 patients were included. Mean AL1 was significantly shorter than AL2 (23.13 ± 1.28 vs. 23.60 ± 1.34 mm, p < 0.001), resulting in higher power of IOL1 than IOL2 (mean difference was 1.53 ± 0.96 diopters, p < 0.001). At 3-months post-operation, twenty-nine eyes (78.4%) (95% CI 62.8%-88.6%) showed refractive error within ± 0.5 diopter and all eyes were within ± 1.0 diopter. Postoperative predictive errors including mean arithmetic error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) of IOL2 were significantly lower than those of IOL1 (ME: IOL1 vs. IOL2, -0.94 ± 0.91 vs. 0.08 ± 0.51; MAE: 0.97 ± 0.88 vs. 0.39 ± 0.33 diopter, all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AL measurement in ERM can be detected as a double peak signal during biometric measurement. The IOL power calculated from the first and second peak signals is significantly different. However, the IOL power derived from the second peak signal provides better refractive outcomes. The results suggest that the second peak signal represents an accurate AL measurement.