scholarly journals Prediction accuracy of conventional and total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Soyoung Ryu ◽  
Ikhyun Jun ◽  
Tae-im Kim ◽  
Kyoung Yul Seo ◽  
Eung Kweon Kim
Keyword(s):  
Femtosecond Laser ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Severance Hospital

AbstractThis study evaluated the accuracy of total keratometry (TK) and standard keratometry (K) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes treated with femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. The retrospective study included a retrospective analysis of data from 62 patients (91 eyes) who underwent uneventful femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with Artis PL E (Cristalens Industrie, Lannion, France) IOL implantation by a single surgeon between May 2020 and December 2020 in Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea. The new IOLMaster 700 biometry device (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) was used to calculate TK and K. The mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE), and the percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, and ± 1.00 D were calculated for all IOL formulas (SRK/T, Hoffer-Q, Haigis, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II). There was strong agreement between K and TK (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99), with a mean difference of 0.04 D. For all formulas, MAE tended to be lower for TK than for K, and relatively lower MAE and MedAE values were observed for SRK/T and Holladay 1. Furthermore, for all formulas, a greater proportion of eyes fell within ± 0.25 D of the predicted postoperative spherical equivalent range in the TK group than in the K group. However, differences in MAEs, MedAEs, and percentages of eyes within the above prediction errors were not statistically significant. In conclusion, TK and K exhibit comparable performance for refractive prediction in eyes undergoing femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery.

scholarly journals Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas for Highly Myopic Eyes

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yichi Zhang ◽  
Xiao Ying Liang ◽  
Shu Liu ◽  
Jacky W. Y. Lee ◽  
Srinivasan Bhaskar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Predictive Error ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Lens Power

Purpose.To evaluate and compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for eyes with an axial length (AL) greater than 26.00 mm.Methods.This study reviewed 407 eyes of 219 patients with AL longer than 26.0 mm. The refractive prediction errors of IOL power calculation formulas (SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay, Hoffer Q, and Barrett Universal II) using User Group for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB) constants were evaluated and compared.Results.One hundred seventy-one eyes were enrolled. The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) and SRK/T and Haigis had similar MAE, and the statistical highest MAE were seen with the Holladay and Hoffer Q formulas. The interquartile range of the Barrett Universal II formula was also the lowest among all the formulas. The Barrett Universal II formulas yielded the highest percentage of eyes within ±1.0 D and ±0.5 D of the target refraction in this study (97.24% and 79.56%, resp.).Conclusions.Barrett Universal II formula produced the lowest predictive error and the least variable predictive error compared with the SRK/T, Haigis, Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas. For high myopic eyes, the Barrett Universal II formula may be a more suitable choice.

scholarly journals Comparison of Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power calculation for Eyes with an Axial Length Greater Than 29.0 mm

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chengyao Guo ◽  
Shengjie Yin ◽  
Kunliang Qiu ◽  
Mingzhi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pairwise Comparison ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract PurposeTo evaluate and compare the accuracy of six different formulas (EVO 2.0, Kane, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for extremely long eyes.MethodsRetrospective case-series. 73 eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 29.0 mm and 920H IOL implantation were included. Prediction errors (PE) were calculated and compared between different formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE.ResultsThe Kane formula had mean prediction error close to zero (-0.01 D, P = 0.841), whereas the EVO 2.0, SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen formulas produced hyperopic outcomes (all P < 0.001). The median absolute error produced by the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas showed no significant difference (0.33 D, 0.30 D, 0.29 D, 0.34 D, respectively, pairwise comparison P > 0.05), but was significantly lower than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas (0.85 D, 0.80 D, respectively, pairwise comparison P＜ 0.001). The accuracy of the SRK/T formula in extremely myopic eyes was affected by the AL, suggesting that a longer AL was always associated with a hyperopic surprise and a shorter AL was always associated with a myopic surprise, whereas the accuracy of other formulas was less affected by the AL.ConclusionsFor cataract patients with axial length greater than 29.0 mm, the accuracy of the EVO 2.0, Kane, Barrett Universal II and Olsen formulas is comparable and significantly better than that of the SRK/T and Haigis formulas.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Influence of Keratometry on Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas in Long Axial Length Eyes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shengjie Yin ◽  
Chengyao Guo ◽  
Kunliang Qiu ◽  
Tsz Kin Ng ◽  
Yuancun Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Axial Length ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Absolute Error ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Intraocular Lens Calculation

Abstract Purpose: Hyperopic surprises tend to occur in axial myopic eyes and other factors including corneal curvature have rarely been analyzed in cataract surgery, especially in eyes with long axial length (≥ 26.0 mm). Thus, the purpose of our study was to evaluate the influence of keratometry on four different formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II, Haigis and Olsen) in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for long eyes.Methods: Retrospective case-series. 180 eyes with axial length (AL) ≥ 26.0 mm were divided into 3 keratometry (K) groups: K ≤ 42.0 D (Flat), K ≥ 46.0 D (Steep), 42.0 < K < 46.0 D (Average). Prediction errors (PE) were compared between different formulas. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate factors associated with the PE.Results: The mean absolute error was higher for all evaluated formulas in Steep group (ranging from 0.66 D to 1.02 D) than the Flat (0.34 D to 0.67 D) and Average groups (0.40 D to 0.74D). The median absolute errors predicted by Olsen formula were significantly lower than that predicted by Haigis formula (0.42 D versus 0.85 D in Steep and 0.29 D versus 0.69 D in Average) in Steep and Average groups (P = 0.012, P < 0.001, respectively). And the Olsen formula demonstrated equal accuracy to the Barrett II formula in Flat and Average groups. The predictability of the SRK/T formula was affected by the AL and K, while the predictability of Olsen and Haigis formulas was affected by the AL only. Conclusions: Steep cornea has more influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation than the other corneal shape in long eyes. Overall, both the Olsen and Barrett Universal II formulas are recommended in long eyes with unusual keratometry.

Comparison of the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens power calculation formulas

2020 ◽  
pp. 112067212096203
Author(s):  
David Carmona-González ◽  
Alfredo Castillo-Gómez ◽  
Carlos Palomino-Bautista ◽  
Marta Romero-Domínguez ◽  
María Ángeles Gutiérrez-Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Case Series ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcome ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Refractive Outcomes ◽  
Iol Power

Purpose To compare the accuracy of 11 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (SRK-T, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen, Barrett Universal II, Hill-RBF, Ladas Super formula, EVO and Kane). Setting Private university hospital (QuironSalud, Madrid, Spain). Design Retrospective case series Methods Data were compiled from 481 eyes of 481 patients who had undergone uneventful cataract surgery with IOL insertion. Preoperative biometric measurements were made using an IOL Master® 700. Respective ULIB IOL constants ( http://ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.htm ) for each of 4 IOL models implanted were used to calculate the predictive refractive outcome for each formula. This was compared with the actual refractive outcome determined 3 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was mean absolute prediction error (MAE). The study sample was divided according to axial length (AL) into three groups of eyes: short (⩽22.00 mm), normal (22.00–25.00 mm) and long (⩾25.00 mm). Results The Barrett Universal II and Haigis formulas yielded the lowest MAEs over the entire AL range ( p < .01, except EVO) as well as in the long ( p < .01, all formulas) and normal ( p < .01, except Haigis, Holladay II, Olsen and LSF) eyes. In the short eyes, the lower MAEs were provided by Haigis and EVO ( p < .01 except Hoffer Q, SRK/T and Holladay I). Conclusions Barrett Universal II was the most accurate for IOL power calculation in the normal and long eyes. For short eyes, the formulas Haigis and EVO seem best at predicting refractive outcomes.

scholarly journals Cataract Surgery following Sequential Myopic and Hyperopic LASIK

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-268
Author(s):  
Tao Ming Thomas Chia ◽  
Hoon C. Jung
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Calculation Method ◽  
Cataract Extraction ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Implantation ◽  
Patient Dissatisfaction ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power

We report a case of patient dissatisfaction after sequential myopic and hyperopic LASIK in the same eye. We discuss the course of management for this patient involving eventual cataract extraction and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation with attention to the IOL power calculation method used.

scholarly journals Improving Intraocular Lens Calculation in Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy According To Preoperative Degree of Corneal Edema

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz Gargallo-Martinez ◽  
Amanda Ortiz-Gomariz ◽  
Ana Maria Gomez-Ramirez ◽  
Angel Ramon Gutiérrez-Ortega ◽  
Jose Javier Garcia-Medina
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Refractive Error ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Corneal Transplantation ◽  
Corneal Edema ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Fuchs Endothelial Dystrophy

Abstract Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED) is a bilateral, asymmetric, progressive corneal endothelium disorder that causes corneal edema. Resolution of corneal edema is only possible by corneal transplantation. Cataract surgery is a common surgery that replaces the natural lens of the eye by an artificial intraocular lens (IOL). The IOL-power calculation depends mainly on the anterior corneal keratometry and the axial length. In patients with FED, anterior keratometry may be affected by corneal edema and calculations may be less accurate. Therefore, the aim of this study is to establish the theorical postoperative refractive error due to corneal edema resolution after Descemet stripping endothelial keratoplasty combined with cataract surgery and IOL implantation. For this, anterior keratometry was measure preoperatively with edematous cornea and postoperatively after corneal edema resolution. Both keratometries were compared and used to calculate the respective theorical IOL-powers. The difference between target IOLs was used to establish the theorical refractive error due to corneal edema resolution. The results showed that corneal edema resolution induces a change in anterior keratometry, which affects IOL-power calculations and causes a hyperopic shift. The patients with moderate-to-severe preoperative corneal edema had higher theorical refractive error so their target selection should be adjusted for additional − 0.50D.

scholarly journals Improving the prediction of effective lens position for intraocular lens power calculations

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-242
Author(s):  
Juanita Noeline Chui ◽  
Keith Ong
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Intraocular Lens ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Anterior Chamber Depth ◽  
Posterior Chamber ◽  
Power Calculation ◽  
Iol Power Calculation ◽  
Lens Position ◽  
Iol Power ◽  
Corneal Apex

Purpose: Achieving the desired post-operative refraction in cataract surgery requires accurate calculations for intraocular lens (IOL) power. Latest-generation formulae use anterior-chamber depth (ACD)—the distance from the corneal apex to the anterior surface of the lens—as one of the parameters to predict the post-operative IOL position within the eye, termed the effective lens position (ELP). Significant discrepancies between predicted and actual ELP result in refractive surprise. This study aims to improve the predictability of ELP. We hypothesise that predictions based on the distance from the corneal apex to the mid-sagittal plane of the cataractous lens would more accurately reflect the position of the principal plane of the non-angulated IOL within the capsular bag. Accordingly, we propose that predictions derived from ACD + ½LT (length thickness) would be superior to those from ACD alone. Design: Retrospective cohort study, comparing ELP predictions derived from ACD to aproposed prediction parameter. Method: This retrospective study includes data from 162 consecutive cataract surgery cases, with posterior-chamber IOL (AlconSN60WF) implantation. Pre- and postoperative biometric measurements were made using the IOLMaster700 (ZEISS, Jena, Germany). The accuracy and reliability of ELP predictions derived from ACD and ACD + ½LT were compared using software-aided analyses. Results: An overall reduction in average ELP prediction error (PEELP) was achieved using the proposed parameter (root-mean-square-error [RMSE] = 0.50 mm), compared to ACD (RMSE = 1.57 mm). The mean percentage PEELP, comparing between eyes of different axial lengths, was 9.88% ± 3.48% and −34.9% ± 4.79% for predictions derived from ACD + ½LT and ACD, respectively. A 44.10% ± 5.22% mean of differences was observed (p < 0.001). Conclusion: ACD + ½LT predicts ELP with greater accuracy and reliability than ACD alone; its use in IOL power calculation formulae may improve refractive outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document