scholarly journals Analysis of IOL power calculations and postoperative visual outcomes in patients who have undergone radial keratotomy and laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e00023
Author(s):  
Shreesha Kumar Kodavoor ◽  
Sanket R. Kulkarni ◽  
Ramamurthy Dandapani ◽  
Chitra Ramamurthy
2020 ◽  
pp. bjophthalmol-2020-317681
Author(s):  
Priyanka Patel ◽  
Zahra Ashena ◽  
Viraj Vasavada ◽  
Shail A Vasavada ◽  
Vaishali Vasavada ◽  
...  

AimTo compare intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods not requiring refraction data prior to myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and radial keratotomy (RK).MethodsIn post-LASIK eyes, the methods not requiring prior refraction data were Hagis-L; Shammas; Barrett True-K no-history; Wang-Koch-Maloney; ‘average’, ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ IOL power on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) IOL calculator. Double-K method and Barrett True-K no-history, ‘average’, ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ IOL power on ASCRS IOL calculator were evaluated in post-RK eyes. The predicted IOL power was calculated with each method using the manifest postoperative refraction. Arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction errors (PE) (implanted–predicted IOL powers), variances in arithmetic IOL PE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D of refractive PE were calculated.ResultsArithmetic or absolute IOL PE were not significantly different between the methods in post-LASIK and post-RK eyes. In post-LASIK eyes, ‘average’ showed the highest and ‘minimum’ showed the least variance, whereas ‘average’ and ‘minimum’ had highest percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ‘minimum’ had the highest percentage of eyes within ±1.0 D. In the post-RK eyes, ‘minimum’ had highest variance, and ‘average’ had the least variance and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D.ConclusionIn post-LASIK and post-RK eyes, there are no significant differences in IOL PE between the methods not requiring prior refraction data. ‘Minimum’ showed least variance in PEs and more chances of eyes to be within ±1.0 D postoperatively in post-LASIK eyes. ‘Average’ had least variance and more chance of eyes within ±1.0 D in post-RK eyes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2478
Author(s):  
Majid Moshirfar ◽  
David G. West ◽  
Chase M Miller ◽  
William B. West ◽  
Shannon E. McCabe ◽  
...  

Although the use of femtosecond lasers instead of mechanical devices has decreased the incidence of flap complications following laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), dislocations and striae still occur. Flap repositioning is an effective intervention to improve visual outcomes after acute flap complications in both microkeratome-assisted and femtosecond-assisted LASIK. This retrospective case series included patients undergoing flap repositioning secondary to acute flap dislocation and/or visually significant striae within the first two weeks following femtosecond LASIK (FS-LASIK) from 2015 to 2020 at a single institution. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative de-identified data were analyzed for incidence, risk factors, and visual acuity outcomes. The incidence of flap repositioning was 0.35% in 21,536 eyes (n = 70). Indications for repositioning included acute flap dislocation (35.7%) and visually significant striae (64.3%). High myopia (OR = 3.04, p = 0.001) and patient age over 50 years (OR = 3.69, p = 0.001) were the strongest risk factors for these complications. Prior to flap repositioning, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20 or better and 20/40 or better occurred in 19% and 57% of eyes, respectively. After repositioning, a final UDVA of 20/20 or better and 20/40 or better occurred in 78% and 98% of eyes, respectively. After repositioning, one line of UDVA was lost in two eyes (2.8%) and two lines were lost in one eye (1.4%). Risk factors for acute flap dislocation included high myopia and age over 50 years. Flap repositioning was effective in salvaging visual outcomes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 703-709 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yosai Mori ◽  
Kimiya Shimizu ◽  
Keiichiro Minami ◽  
Kazutaka Kamiya ◽  
Nobuyuki Shoji ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
pp. 401-416
Author(s):  
Albert Chak Ming Wong ◽  
Dimitri T. Azar

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document