Accuracy of intra ocular lens calculation formulae in patients with pseudoexfoliation syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the visual and refractive outcomes in patients with pseudoexfoliation (PXF) undergoing routine cataract surgery and to compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae. METHODS: Retrospective case-series study from Shamir medical center, a public hospital, Israel. Medical records of patients who underwent routine cataract surgery between January 2019 and August 2021 were investigated. Postoperative visual acuity and manifest refraction were examined. The error in predicted refraction and IOL power calculation accuracy within a range of ± 0.50 to ± 1.00 diopters were compared between different IOL calculating formulae. RESULTS: 151 eyes of 151 patients ages 73.9 ± 7.1 years were included in this study- 58 eyes in the PXF group and 93 eyes in the control group. The mean absolute error (MAE) for the BUII formula was 0.63D ± 0.87 for the PXF group and 0.36D ± 0.48 for the control group (p < 0.05). The MAE for the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula was 0.61D ± 0.84 for the PXF group and 0.42D ± 0.55 for the control group (p = 0.05). There were significant differences in MAE and MedAE between PXF group and control group measures (p < 0.05). In the PXF group there were no significant differences between the different formulae. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in accuracy of IOL power calculations in all formulae between PXF group and control group measures. PXF patients show hyperopic shift from predicted refraction. Barret universal II formula had the highest proportion of eyes with absolute error in prediction below or equal to 0.50 D in both PXF and control groups.

Accuracy of Toric Intraocular Lens Calculations Using Estimated Versus Measured Posterior Corneal Astigmatism.

PURPOSE: To compare the prediction accuracy of toric intraocular lens calculations using estimated vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: A total of 110 eyes of 110 patients with uncomplicated toric intraocular lens implantation were included in this study. Predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism was calculated with the Barrett Toric Calculator using the estimated PCA (E-PCA), the measured IOLMaster 700 PCA (I-PCA), and the measured Pentacam PCA (P-PCA). Refractive astigmatism prediction errors (RA-PEs), including their trimmed (tr-) centroid (mean vector), spread (precision), tr-mean absolute RA-PE (accuracy), and percentage within a certain threshold, were determined using vector analysis and compared between groups. SETTING: University Eye Clinic, Maastricht University Medical Center+, the Netherlands. RESULTS: The tr-centroid RA-PEs of the E-PCA (0.02 diopter [D] at 82.2°), the I-PCA (0.08 D at 35.5°), and the P-PCA (0.09 D at 69.1°) were significantly different from each other (P < .01), but not significantly different from zero (P = .75, P = .05, and P = .05, respectively). The E-PCA had the best precision (tr-mean 0.40 D), which was not significantly lower than the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .53) and P-PCA (0.43 D, P = .06). The E-PCA also had the best accuracy (0.40 D), which was not significantly different from the I-PCA (0.42 D, P = .26) and significantly better than the P-PCA (0.44 D, P < .01). The precision and accuracy of the I-PCA did not significantly differ from those of the P-PCA. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentage of eyes within a certain absolute RA-PE threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett Toric Calculator using the E-PCA, I-PCA, or P-PCA showed a comparable prediction of postoperative refractive astigmatism in standard clinical practice.

Comparison of biometry measurements and intraocular lens power prediction between 2 SS-OCT-based biometers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement in biometry measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction between the Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700. SETTING: Institutional. DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. METHODS: Patients were evaluated before cataract surgery using both devices on the same visit. Axial length, anterior and posterior keratometry, anterior chamber depth, corneal diameter (CD), central corneal thickness, and lens thickness were recorded by both devices. The agreement in measurements and in IOL power calculations was evaluated using the Barrett Universal II (BU-II) formula with either predicted or measured posterior keratometry. RESULTS: In total, 402 eyes of 402 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 72.0 ± 9.2 years. Clinically, mean differences in measured variables were small, albeit slightly larger for posterior flat and steep keratometry (0.43 diopters [D] and 0.42 D, respectively). The measurement correlation and agreement between the devices were good for all variables with slightly lower agreement in CD measurements. Consistent bias was seen in measurements of posterior flat and steep keratometry. Good agreement was also found in anterior and posterior astigmatism measurements. Good IOL power calculation agreement was found using either predicted posterior keratometry (95% limits of agreement [LoA] of -0.40 to +0.30 D) or measured posterior keratometry (95% LoA of -0.45 to +0.40 D). The agreement was within ±0.5 D in 394 eyes (98.0%) using predicted posterior keratometry and in 386 eyes (96.0%) using measured posterior keratometry. CONCLUSIONS: The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show strong agreement in biometry measurements and IOL power prediction by the BU-II formula using either standard or total corneal keratometry and can be used interchangeably.

Autorefraction as an Objective Method to Evaluate Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas.

PURPOSE: To compare the spherical equivalent (SE) and astigmatic prediction error between subjective refraction (SUBref) and autorefraction (AUTOref) after cataract surgery to determine whether the latter is useful as an objective method to compare the accuracy of different methods of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. METHODS: Postoperative refraction was examined using two techniques: SUBref and AUTOref. The results of these two techniques were compared. Predicted postoperative refraction for spherical outcome was calculated with the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Haigis, Holladay I, SRK/T, Hoffer Q, and BUII with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (MPCA) formulas. Predicted postoperative refraction for astigmatic outcome was calculated with the Barrett Toric calculator, vergence-based toric calculator using the Holladay 1 formula for effective lens position, and Barrett Toric calculator MPCA formulas. Formula accuracy and ranking were compared between the two methods of refraction. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 219 eyes of 155 patients. Statistically significant differences were detected between SUBref and AUTOref for SE, J0, and J45 (P < .001). The spherical outcome formula analysis demonstrated no significant differences, whereas the predicted cylinder power analysis demonstrated significant differences within individual formulas between SUBref and AUTOref measures. The lowest median absolute error and the highest percentage of eyes achieving their refractive target for both SUBref and AUTOref were achieved with the BUII formula and the Barrett Toric calculator. CONCLUSIONS: AUTOref is a useful method with adequate accuracy to determine spherical and astigmatic outcome and equally or more effective in being able to discriminate between spherical outcome formulas. The AUTOref method can allow valuable studies to be conducted in less-than-optimal environments and provides the ability to compare studies without the confounding factors of SUBref. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(9):580-586.].

Measured Corneal Astigmatism Versus Pseudophakic Predicted Refractive Astigmatism in Cataract Surgery Candidates.

PURPOSE: To compare standard and total corneal astigmatism measurements to the predicted pseudophakic (nontoric) refractive astigmatism in candidates for cataract surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study. METHODS: A single-center analysis of consecutive eyes measured with a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer at a large tertiary medical center between February 2018 and June 2020. Corneal astigmatism was calculated based on standard keratometry astigmatism (KA), total corneal astigmatism (TCA), and predicted refractive astigmatism (PRA) for a monofocal nontoric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation calculated by the Barrett toric calculator using the predicted posterior corneal astigmatism (PRA(Predicted-PCA)) and the measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PRA(Measured-PCA)) options. Separate analyses were performed for each eye. SETTING: Ophthalmology Department, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. RESULTS: In total, 8152 eyes of 5320 patients (4221 right eyes [OD] and 3931 left eyes [OS], mean age 70.6±12.2 years, 54.2% females) were included in the study. The mean vector values (centroid) for KA, TCA, PRA(Predicted-PCA), and PRA(Measured-PCA) were 0.07 diopters [D] at 19.5°, 0.27 D at 7.5°, 0.44 D at 2.9°, and 0.43 D at 179.3°, respectively (P < .01), for OD and 0.02 D at 150.3°, 0.23 D at 169.7°, 0.40 D at 179.4°, and 0.42 D at 169.5°, respectively (P < .01), for OS. More than 73% of eyes had a PRA >0.5 D. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and total corneal astigmatism measurements differ significantly from the PRA by the Barrett toric calculator. The PRA, rather than the KA or TCA, should be used as the reference guide for astigmatism correction with toric IOL implantation.

Toric intraocular lens power calculation in cataract patients with keratoconus.

PURPOSE: Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with keratoconus typically results in hyperopic postoperative refractive error. The purpose of this study was to investigate the visual and refractive outcomes in patients with keratoconus having cataract surgery with a toric IOL and compare IOL power calculation accuracy of conventional formulas and keratoconus-specific formulas. SETTING: Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. DESIGN: Retrospective case-series study. METHODS: Postoperative visual acuity and manifest refraction were examined. The error in predicted refraction and IOL power calculation accuracy within a range of 0.50 to 2.00 diopters (D) were compared between different IOL calculating formulas. RESULTS: 32 eyes with keratoconus were included. Visual acuity improved in all cases, and subjective astigmatism decreased from -2.95 ± 2.10 D to -0.95 ± 0.80 D (P < .001). The mean absolute errors were as follows: Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus with measured or predicted posterior corneal power, 0.34 D; Barrett Universal II formula, 0.64 D; Kane formula, 0.69 D; Kane formula for keratoconus, 0.49 D; SRK/T formula, 0.56 D; Haigis formula, 0.72 D; Holladay 1 formula, 0.71 D, and Hoffer Q formula, 0.87 D. Barrett True-K formula with measured posterior corneal power, SRK/T formula, and Kane formula for keratoconus resulted in a prediction error within ±0.50 D of 87.5%, 59.4%, and 53.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cataract removal with a toric IOL significantly improves visual acuity and decreases astigmatism in keratoconic eyes with a topographic central relatively regular astigmatic component. Keratoconus-specific formulas resulted in lower mean error in predicted refraction compared with conventional calculating formulas. Using the posterior corneal power within the Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus improved IOL power prediction accuracy.

Results of the Barrett True-K formula for IOL power calculation based on Scheimpflug camera measurements in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the refractive results of 4 different options for the Barrett True-K formula in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery. SETTING: IRCCS-Fondazione Bietti, Rome, Italy. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Biometric measurements obtained with a rotating Scheimpflug camera (Pentacam) were entered into the Barrett True-K formula. Clinical history (laser-induced refractive change) and the measured posterior corneal curvature were entered as optional. Four variants of the Barrett True-K formula were investigated: (1) with history and measured posterior corneal power, (2) with history and predicted posterior corneal power, (3) no history with measured posterior corneal power, and (4) no history with predicted posterior corneal power. The prediction error (PE) was calculated as the difference between the measured and predicted postoperative refraction values. RESULTS: In 50 eyes (50 patients), the Barrett True-K formula with history and measured posterior corneal power resulted in the lowest standard deviation of the PE (0.52 diopters [D]), lowest median (0.245 D) and mean (0.413 D) absolute errors, and highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D (54%), ±0.50 D (70%), and ±0.75 D (84%). The Barrett True-K no-history formula with predicted posterior corneal power yielded the worst refractive outcomes. When the 4 options were compared, statistically significant differences were detected among the median absolute errors (P = .0017) and the percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Using historical data and measured posterior corneal power improved the refractive accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula in eyes with previous myopic excimer laser surgery.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods when targeting low myopia in monovision.

PURPOSE: To investigate the accuracy of IOL power calculation methods for refractive targets of myopia compared with emmetropia. SETTING: Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: Patients undergoing bilateral, sequential cataract surgery with a plan of modest monovision were analyzed. Target refraction was plano (distance eye) and -1.25 diopters (D) (near eye). Prediction error was determined by comparing the actual postoperative refraction with the predicted postoperative refraction, calculated by the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Hill-RBF version 2.0 (Hill-RBF 2.0), Haigis, Holladay 1, SRK/T, and Hoffer Q formulas. The dataset was divided into distance and near eye subgroups. Mean and median absolute error and percentage of eyes within ±0.25, ±0.50, ±0.75, and ±1.00 D of refractive target were compared. RESULTS: The study included 88 consecutive patients. There was a consistent trend for lower refractive accuracy in the near eyes. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 were the most accurate overall and least affected by this phenomenon, with 1 (1.1%) and 4 (4.6%) fewer eyes, respectively, in the near subgroup achieving ±0.50 D of target. Haigis and SRK/T were most affected, with 14 (15.9%) and 11 (12.5%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target (P < .05). Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q occupied the middle ground, with 6 (6.8%) and 9 (10.2%) fewer near eyes achieving ±0.50 D of target. CONCLUSIONS: IOL-power calculation formulas appear to be less accurate when targeting myopia compared with emmetropia. BUII and Hill-RBF 2.0 represented good options when planning pseudophakic monovision as they were least affected by this phenomenon and can be used for both distance and near eyes.

Methods for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Surgery after Radial Keratotomy.

PURPOSE: To compare methods of calculating the required intraocular lens (IOL) power for patients undergoing cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (RK), including the 2016 update of the True K formula. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 52 eyes of 34 patients who had sequential RK and cataract surgery performed in the same institution by 1 of 2 surgeons. METHODS: Seven IOL calculation formulae were evaluated: True K [History], True K [Partial History], True K [No History], Double-K Holladay 1 (DK-Holladay-IOLM), Potvin-Hill, Haigis, and Haigis with a -0.50 diopter (D) offset. Biometry was obtained with the IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and Pentacam (OCULUS Inc, Arlington, WA) devices. Subjective refraction was performed at 4 to 6 weeks postoperatively. The achieved spherical equivalent outcome was compared with the target outcome to calculate the absolute error for each eye with each formula. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median absolute error (MedAE) and mean absolute error (MAE), and percentage of patients within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D of refractive target. Mean error (ME) was also calculated to demonstrate whether a formula tended toward more myopic or hyperopic outcomes. RESULTS: Best results were achieved with the True K [History]. The MedAE was higher (0.382 vs. 0.275) with the True K [Partial History], but a similar percentage of patients (75.0%-76.6%) achieved within ±0.50 D of target. Of the methods that do not require refractive history, the True K [No History] and unadjusted Haigis were most accurate (69.2% within ±0.50 D of target), with the True K [No History] returning the lowest MedAE but also more of a tendency toward hyperopia (ME +0.269 vs. -0.006 for Haigis). The DK-Holladay-IOLM and Potvin-Hill methods were the least accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the refractive history significantly improves the accuracy of IOL calculations in patients undergoing cataract surgery after previous RK. The post-RK refraction appears to be the most important parameter, with inclusion of the pre-RK refraction offering a further slight improvement in MedAE. When no refractive history is available, the True K [No History] and Haigis formulae both perform well, with the added advantage of not requiring data from separate biometric devices.

Using the first-eye prediction error in cataract surgery to refine the refractive outcome of the second eye.

PURPOSE: To refine the refractive outcome of the second eye after cataract surgery by deriving adjustment coefficients for intraocular lens (IOL) selection based on the prediction error (PE) of the first eye. SETTING: University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, England, and the Lions Eye Institute, Perth, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective study of two heterogeneous datasets. METHODS: One hundred thirty-nine patients who underwent delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery in Australia were retrospectively analyzed. The PE was determined by comparing postoperative subjective refraction with the predicted postoperative refraction (PPOR) calculated by the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T formulas. Adjustment coefficients were derived for each formula and applied to the second eye's IOL calculation. Separately, patient-specific optimized IOL constants were derived from the first-eye PE and applied to the second-eye calculation. The same adjustments were applied to a dataset of 605 patients in the United Kingdom to test the validity of the Australian results. RESULTS: The study comprised data on 139 patients in Australia and 605 patients in the U.K. The Australian-derived adjustment coefficients based on PE ranged from 0.30 to 0.56 (Barrett Universal II 0.30; Hoffer Q 0.56; Holladay I 0.53; SRK/T 0.48). Applying these to the U.K. dataset led to the percentage of patients within 0.50 diopters of PPOR with their second eye improving from 70.74%, 65.29%, 69.09%, and 67.77%, with the Barrett Universal II, Hoffer Q, Holladay I, and SRK/T, respectively, to 72.73%, 68.76%, 71.57%, and 72.56%. Using patient-specific optimized IOL constants derived from the first eye had similar efficacy to formula-specific adjustment. CONCLUSION: Second-eye refinement via either formula-specific PPOR adjustment or patient-specific IOL constant adjustment improved the percentage of patients achieving the refractive target with their second eye.

New regression formula for toric intraocular lens calculations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of 2 toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators with or without a new regression formula. SETTING: Ein-Tal Eye Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel, and the Lions Eye Institute, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: A new regression formula (Abulafia-Koch) was developed to calculate the estimated total corneal astigmatism based on standard keratometry measurements. The error in the predicted residual astigmatism was calculated by the Alcon and Holladay toric IOL calculators with and without adjustments by the Abulafia-Koch formula. These results were compared with those of the Barrett toric calculator. RESULTS: Data from 78 eyes were evaluated to validate the Abulafia-Koch formula. The centroid errors in predicted residual astigmatism were against-the-rule with the Alcon (0.55 diopter [D]) and Holladay (0.54 D) toric calculators and decreased to 0.05 D (P < .001 [x-axis], P = .776 [y-axis]) and 0.04 D (P < .001 [x-axis], P = .726 [y-axis]) with adjustments by the Abulafia-Koch formula. The Alcon and the Holladay toric calculators had a higher proportion of eyes within ±0.50 D of the predicted residual astigmatism with the Abulafia-Koch formula (76.9% and 78.2%, respectively) than without it (both 30.8%). There were no significant differences between the results of the Abulafia-Koch-modified Alcon and the Holladay toric calculators and those of the Barrett toric calculator. CONCLUSION: Adjustment of commercial toric IOL calculators by the Abulafia-Koch formula significantly improved the prediction of postoperative astigmatic outcome. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Dr. Abulafia received a speaker's fee from Haag-Streit AG. Dr. Barrett has licensed the Barrett Toric Calculator to Haag-Streit AG. Dr. Koch is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., and Revision Optics, Inc. Dr. Hill is a paid consultant to Haag-Streit AG and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. None of the other authors has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula with other methods available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive surgery intraocular lens (IOL) power calculator for the prediction of IOL power after previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula was compared with the Adjusted Atlas (4.0 mm zone), Masket, modified-Masket, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L methods to calculate IOL power. A separate analysis of 2 no-history methods (Shammas and Haigis-L) was performed and compared with the Barrett True-K no-history option. RESULTS: Eighty-eight eyes were available for analysis. The Barrett True-K formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error than all other formulas except the Masket, smaller variances compared with the Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L, and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) of predicted error in refraction compared with the Adjusted Atlas, Masket, and modified Masket methods (all P < .05). In eyes with no historical data, the Barrett True-K no-history formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of the predicted error in refraction than the Shammas and the Haigis-L formulas (both P < .05). CONCLUSION: The Barrett True-K formula was either equal to or better than alternative methods available on the ASCRS online calculator for predicting IOL power in eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK.

Comparison of Methods to Predict Residual Astigmatism After Intraocular Lens Implantation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of three toric intraocular lens (IOL) calculators using keratometry measurements derived from the anterior corneal curvature and direct measurements of the posterior corneal curvature. METHODS: Postoperative corneal astigmatism was measured by the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany). The data were processed by the Alcon, Holladay, and Barrett toric IOL calculators. The error in predicted residual astigmatism (PredRA) was calculated by subtracting the PredRA from the postoperative subjective refraction by vector analysis. RESULTS: The centroid errors in PredRA were against-the-rule (ATR) with the Alcon (0.56 diopters [D]) and Holladay (0.55 D) toric calculators using the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) measurements. The centroid errors in PredRA were lower when Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany) measurements were used (0.38 D, ATR). The Barrett toric calculator using the IOLMaster measurements had the lowest centroid errors in PredRA (0.02 D, P < .001) and achieved the most accurate results: 75.8% and 92.9% of eyes were within 0.50 and 0.75 D of the PredRA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction of the postoperative astigmatic outcome can be improved by using appropriate methods of adjustment for posterior corneal astigmatism.