The use of a single value of nk for the calculation of the total corneal power in keratoconus has been shown to be imprecise, leading to inaccuracies in the detection and classification of this corneal condition. Furthermore, our study shows the relevance of corneal thickness in corneal power calculations in keratoconus.

The use of a single value for nk for the calculation of corneal power is imprecise in keratoconus and can lead to significant clinical errors.

Purpose To analyze the errors associated to corneal power calculation using the keratometric approach in keratoconus eyes after accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) surgery and to obtain a model for the estimation of an adjusted corneal refractive index (nkadj) minimizing such errors. Methods Potential differences (ΔPc) among keratometric (Pk) and Gaussian corneal power (PcGauss) were simulated. Three algorithms based on the use of nkadj for the estimation of an adjusted keratometric corneal power (Pkadj) were developed. The agreement between Pk(1.3375) (keratometric power using the keratometric index of 1.3375), PcGauss, and Pkadj was evaluated. The validity of the algorithm developed was investigated in 21 keratoconus eyes undergoing accelerated CXL. Results P k(1.3375) overestimated corneal power between 0.3 and 3.2 D in theoretical simulations and between 0.8 and 2.9 D in the clinical study (ΔPc). Three linear equations were defined for nkadj to be used for different ranges of r1c. In the clinical study, differences between Pkadj and PcGauss did not exceed ±0.8 D nk = 1.3375. No statistically significant differences were found between Pkadj and PcGauss (p > 0.05) and Pk(1.3375) and Pkadj (p < 0.001). Conclusions The use of the keratometric approach in keratoconus eyes after accelerated CXL can lead to significant clinical errors. These errors can be minimized with an adjusted keratometric approach.

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in Intraocular Lens (IOL) power in keratoconus (KC) eyes between calculations obtained clinically with the most commonly used formulas in healthy eyes (SRK T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q and Haigis) as well as to define predictive factors for such differences. Methods: This retrospective study comprised 43 keratoconus eyes of 22 patients with no previous ocular surgery. IOL powers were calculated with SRK T, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formulas, considering the Effective Lens Position (ELP) of each formula and the desired refraction of 0 D (Rdes=0 D). Results: All differences between formulas were statistically significant and clinically relevant. Haigis formula always provided higher values compared to the rest of the formulas, with the highest differences observed when comparing Haigis with Hoffer (0.84 D) and Hoffer Q (1.17 D) formulas. The lowest difference was obtained for the comparison between SRK-T and Holladay 1 formulas (0.22 D). Differences of the Haigis formula compared to the rest were higher as the magnitude of the IOL power calculated decreased, becoming the patient more myopic. Increased differences between Haigis and Hoffer formulas were observed in eyes with deep anterior chambers, steeper anterior and posterior corneal surfaces, and high axial lengths. Conclusion: The most comparable results in IOL power in keratoconus are provided by the Holladay 1 and SRK T formulas, whereas the Haigis formula provides the most discrepant outcome. The consideration of the curvature of the second corneal surface in IOL power calculations in keratoconus may decrease the variability between calculation methods. However, other factors as anterior chamber depth or axial length are also relevant.

Purpose: To analyze and define the possible errors that may be introduced in keratoconus classification when the keratometric corneal power is used in such classification. Materials and methods:Retrospective study including a total of 44 keratoconus eyes. A comprehensive ophthalmologic examination was performed in all cases, which included a corneal analysis with the Pentacam system (Oculus). Classical keratometric corneal power (P k ), Gaussian corneal power (P c Gauss ), True Net Power (TNP) (Gaussian power neglecting the corneal thickness effect), and an adjusted keratometric corneal power (P kadj ) (keratometric power considering a variable keratometric index) were calculated. All cases included in the study were classified according to five different classification systems: Alió-Shabayek, Amsler-Krumeich, RabinowitzMcDonnell, collaborative longitudinal evaluation of keratoconus (CLEK), and McMahon.Results: When P k and P kadj were compared, differences in the type of grading of keratoconus cases was found in 13.6% of eyes when the Alió-Shabayek or the Amsler-Krumeich systems were used. Likewise, grading differences were observed in 22.7% of eyes with the Rabinowitz-McDonnell and McMahon classification systems and in 31.8% of eyes with the CLEK classification system. All reclassified cases using P kadj were done in a less severe stage, indicating that the use of P k may lead to the classification of a cornea as keratoconus, being normal. In general, the results obtained using P kadj , P c Gauss or the TNP were equivalent. Differences between P kadj and P c Gauss were within ± 0.7D. Conclusion:The use of classical keratometric corneal power may lead to incorrect grading of the severity of keratoconus, with a trend to a more severe grading.