Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery

Wang, Li; Spektor, Tatyana; Souza, Rodrigo G. de; Koch, Douglas D.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.05.020

Cited by 98 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Barrett True-K TK, Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, and Shammas-PL formulas, on the other hand, were noted to have significant myopic tendency, and the Holladay I TK significant hyperopic tendency. Similar myopic mean prediction errors have been reported for the Barrett True-K no history [2], Haigis-L [2,11,[24][25][26], and Shammas-PL [2,11,26] formulas. Although Holladay I TK performed well, its significant hyperopic ME may suggest it to be less suitable for postmyopic laser refractive surgery eyes in comparison to other conventional formulas using TK.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery

Yeo

Heng

Pek

et al. 2020

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This comparative study aimed to determine if total keratometry (TK) from IOLMaster 700 could be applied to conventional formulas to perform IOL power calculation in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery, and to evaluate their accuracy with known post-laser refractive surgery formulas. Methods Sixty-four eyes of 49 patients with previous myopic laser refractive surgery were evaluated 1 month after cataract surgery. A comparison of the prediction error was made between no clinical history post-laser refractive surgery formulas (Barrett True-K, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL) and conventional formulas (EVO, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T) using TK values obtained with the optical biometer IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), as well as Barrett True-K with TK.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery

Yeo

Heng

Pek

et al. 2020

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among these, three studies did not have percentage data, 16 studies included only one of the selected formulae, five studies were hyperopic laser refractive surgery or radial keratotomy surgery. After the exclusion of these studies, 16 articles were used for analysis [5,[12][13][14][15][16][17][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Nan

et al. 2020

Eye and Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes. Methods: We searched the databases on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane library to select relevant studies published between Jan 1st, 2009 and Aug 11th, 2019. Primary outcomes were the percentages of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D. Results: The final meta-analysis included 16 studies using seven common methods (ASCRS average, Barrett True-K no history, Double-K SRK/T, Haigis-L, OCT formula, Shammas-PL, and Wang-Koch-Maloney). ASCRS average yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Haigis-L, Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.009, 0.01, 0.008, respectively). Barrett True-K no history also yielded significantly higher percentage of refractive prediction error within ±0.5 D than Shammas-PL and Wang-Koch-Maloney (P = 0.01, P < 0.0001, respectively), and a similar result was found when comparing OCT formula with Haigis-L and Shammas-PL (P = 0.03, P = 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: The ASCRS average or Barrett True-K no history should be used to calculate the intraocular lens power in eyes after myopic laser refractive surgery. The OCT formula if available, can also be a good alternative choice.

show abstract

“…And methods requiring historical clinical data [17], e.g. the Camellin-Calossi formula [18] and the Barrett Ture K formula [19], which is infeasible Whether this would result in the difference in corneal power changes has not been investigated yet.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency evaluation of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone small-incision lenticule extraction

Chen

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To compare the differences in the consistency of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations with four different formulas for cataract surgery after small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE), and to select the most suitable formula to calculate the IOL power of cataract patients after SMILE. Methods 98 eyes of 51 patients who underwent small-incision lenticule extraction (preoperative spherical equivalents, -2.05 to -10.10D) between June 2019 to July 2019 in our department were included, all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. IOLMaster 500 was used for biometric measurement and Haigis-L correction formula was calculated. AL-Scan was used to calculate Shammas-PL correction formula, Camellin-Calossi formula and Barret True K formula. We simulated the intraocular lens calculation before cataract surgery in all eyes with these four formulas. The consistency of the calculated IOL powers were evaluated by correlation analysis, one-way ANOVA, and Bland-Altman analysis.Results The average values of Barret True K formula, Shammas-PL correction formula, Camellin-Calossi formula and Haigis-L correction formula are 22.32±1.14 D, 23.28±1.21 D, 22.91±1.26 D, 23.54±1.23 D respectively. Simple correlation analysis: The average values of these four formulas were correlated, and the correlation coefficients were 0.94(Barrett Ture K and Shammas-PL), 0.98 (Barrett Ture K and Camellin-Calossi), 0.89(Barrett Ture K and Haigis-L), 0.98(Haigis-L and Shammas-PL), 0.88(Haigis-L and Camellin-Calossi) and 0.93(Shammas-PL and Camellin-Calossi)(significant, p=0.00); One-way ANOVA: There was no significant difference between the Shammas-PL correction formula and the Haigis-L correction formula. The Camellin-Calossi formula and the Barret True K formula were significantly different from the Haigis-L correction formula. Bland-Altman analysis: for the difference-mean scatter plot and the ratio-mean scatter plot: the maximum allowable error of the 95% limit is 9.61%, 7.45%, and 2.99%, respectively, indicating that the results are consistent. Conclusions Haigis-L and Shammas-PL formulas had good consistency when calculating the IOL power in eyes after SMILE.

show abstract

Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery

Cited by 98 publications

References 15 publications

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery

Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae after laser refractive surgery in myopic eyes: a meta-analysis

Consistency evaluation of intraocular lens power calculation methods in eyes that have undergone small-incision lenticule extraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About