Precision in IOL Calculation for Cataract Patients with Prior History of Combined RK and LASIK Histories.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulae for eyes that have undergone both radial keratotomy (RK) and laser assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery to determine the efficacy of various IOL calculations for this unique patient group. Currently, research on this surgical topic is limited. Methods: In this retrospective study, 11 eyes from 7 individuals with a history of RK and LASIK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision were analyzed. Preoperative biometric and corneal topographic measurements were performed. Subjective refraction was obtained postoperatively. Twelve different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were used: Barrett True K No History, Barrett True K (prior LASIK, Prior RK history), Barrett Universal 2, Camellin-Calossi-Camellin (3C), Double K-Modified Holladay, Haigis-L, Galilei, OCT, PEARL-DGS, Potvin-Hill, Panacea, and Shammas. Results: The rankings of mean arithmetic error (MAE), from least to greatest, were as follows: 3C (0.088), Haigis-L-L (-0.508), Shammas (-0.516), OCT Average (-0.538), Barrett True K (-0.557), OCT RK (-0.563), Galilei (-0.570), IOL Master (-0.571), OCT LASIK (-0.583), Barrett True K No History (-0.597), Pearl-DGS (-0.606), Potvin-Hill SF (-0.770), Potvin-Hill TNP (-0.778), Panacea (-0.876), and Barrett Universal 2 (-1.522). The 3C formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D of target range (91%), while Haigis-L, Shammas, Galilei, Potvin Hill, Barrett True K, IOL Master, PEARL-DGS, and OCT formulae performed similarly, achieving 45% of eyes within ±0.75D of target refraction. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the accuracy of the lesser known 3C formula in IOL calculation, particularly for patients who have undergone both RK and LASIK. Well-known formulae, such as Haigis-L, Shammas, and Galilei, which are used by the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), are viable options, although 3C formulae should be considered in this patient population. Furthermore, larger studies can confirm the best IOL power formulas for post-RK and LASIK cataract patients.

Predictability of Existing IOL Formulas After Cataract Surgery in Patients with a Previous History of Radial Keratotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study and Literature Review.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of 12 different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for post-radial keratotomy (RK) eyes. The investigation utilizes recent advances in topography/tomography devices and artificial intelligence (AI)-based calculators, comparing the results to those reported in current literature to assess the efficacy and predictability of IOL calculations for this patient group. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 37 eyes from 24 individuals with a history of RK who underwent cataract surgery at Hoopes Vision Center were analyzed. Biometry and corneal topography measurements were taken preoperatively. Subjective refraction was obtained 6 months postoperatively. Twelve different IOL power calculations were used, including the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-RK online formula, and the Barrett True K, Double K modified-Holladay 1, Haigis-L, Panacea, Camellin-Calossi, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Kane, and Prediction Enhanced by Artificial Intelligence and output Linearization-Debellemanière, Gatinel, and Saad (PEARL-DGS) formulas. Outcome measures included median absolute error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), arithmetic mean error (AME), and percentage of eyes achieving refractive prediction errors (RPE) within ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, and ± 1 D for each formula. A search of the literature was also performed by two independent reviewers based on relevant formulas. RESULTS: Overall, the best performing IOL power calculations were the Camellin-Calossi (MedAE = 0.515 D), the ASCRS average (MedAE = 0.535 D), and the EVO (MedAE = 0.545 D) and Kane (MedAE = 0.555 D) AI-based formulas. The EVO and Kane formulas along with the ASCRS calculation performed similarly, with 48.65% of eyes scoring within ± 0.50 D of the target range, while the Equivalent Keratometry Reading (EKR) 65 Holladay formula achieved the greatest percentage of eyes scoring within ± 0.25 D of the target range (35.14%). Additionally, the EVO 2.0 formula achieved 64.86% of eyes scoring within the ± 0.75 D RPE category, while the Kane formula achieved 75.68% of eyes scoring within the ± 1 D RPE category. There was no significant difference in MAE between the established and newer generation formulas (P > 0.05). The Panacea formula consistently underperformed when compared to the ASCRS average and other high-performing formulas (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the potential of AI-based IOL calculation formulas, such as EVO 2.0 and Kane, for improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation in post-RK eyes undergoing cataract surgery. Established calculations, such as the ASCRS and Barrett True K formula, remain effective options, while under-utilized formulas, like the EKR65 and Camellin-Calossi formulas, show promise, emphasizing the need for further research and larger studies to validate and enhance IOL power calculation for this patient group.

Accuracy of intraocular lens power formulas in eyes with keratoconus: Multi-center study in Japan.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas, namely, SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II, Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane formula, and Kane formula for keratoconus, for cataract with keratoconus in Japanese eyes. SETTING: Five surgical sites in Japan. DESIGN: A retrospective case series. METHODS: Eyes with keratoconus undergoing cataract surgery were included. Postoperative refraction was compared with the prediction by the formulas. Visual acuity, manifest spherical equivalent, prediction error (PE), and mean absolute errors (MAEs) were determined 1 month postoperatively. The PE within 0.50 diopter (D), 1.00 D, and 2.00 D were compared between IOL formulas. Subgroup analysis based on the steepest keratometry (stage 1, ≤ 48 D; stage 2, > 48 D and ≤ 53 D; and stage 3, > 53 D) was performed. The relationship between PE and preoperative biometric data were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty eyes were included. The MAE of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, Kane keratoconus, and Kane formulas were significantly lower than that of Haigis. A statistically significant difference in the prediction accuracy within ± 0.50 D was found between Kane keratoconus and Haigis. The prediction accuracy of the Barrett True-K for keratoconus, SRK/T, and Kane within ± 1.00 D was statistically significant compared with that of Haigis. In stage 3, the Barrett True-K for keratoconus had a significantly lower MAE than SRK/T and Haigis. CONCLUSION: Keratoconus-specific formulas were more accurate than existing formulas in Japanese eyes. The Barrett True-K formula for keratoconus had higher prediction accuracy in severe keratoconus.

Accuracy of Traditional and Modern Formulas for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation After Radial Keratotomy Using Standard Keratometry.

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of multiple traditional and modern intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas in post-radial keratotomy (RK) patients undergoing cataract surgery. Methods: This retrospective case series included 50 eyes with prior RK who underwent routine phacoemulsification surgery with single-piece acrylic IOL implantation (A constant = 118.8). Outcomes of multiple formulas were calculated. Included formulas were SRK/T, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Haigis, Barrett True-K, Haigis and Barrett True-K (target refraction of 0.50 D), Barrett Universal II, Kane, PEARL-DGS, Shammas no history, DK SRK/T, DK SRK/T (target refraction of 0.50 D), Double K (DK) Holladay 1, and DK Holladay 1 (target refraction of 0.50 D). Averages of multiple combinations of best-performing single formulas were calculated. Primary outcome is mean absolute error (MAE). Results: Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction) and DK SRK/T showed the lowest mean and median absolute errors (MedAE) followed by Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K (with -0.50 D target refraction). Combinations of 3, 4, or 5 of best performing single formulas yielded good results with >60% of cases within +0.50 D of intended refraction and MAE around 0.50 D. The best performing formulas with flatter K readings were PEARL-DGS and Haigis (with additional -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.72 + 0.71 D and 0.70 + 0.70 D, respectively, followed by Barrett True-K (with intended -0.50 D target refraction) with MAE of 0.75 + 0.63 D. Conclusion: Using an average of three or more Haigis (with -0.50 D target refraction), the Barrett True-K, DK Holladay 1, and DK SRK/T formulas showed better outcomes than using a single formula for IOLMaster 700 standard K readings. The PEARL-DGS formula showed better accuracy in eyes with flatter K readings (<38 D).

Refractive Accuracy of Barrett True-K vs Intraoperative Aberrometry for IOL Power Calculation in Post-Corneal Refractive Surgery Eyes.

PURPOSE: To compare the refractive predictability of intraoperative aberrometry (IA, ORA, Alcon) and Barrett True-K/Universal II formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. METHODS: Retrospective study of normal and post-corneal refractive surgery eyes that underwent cataract surgery with IA at tertiary academic center. Preoperatively, IOL power calculations were performed using Barrett Universal II (normal eyes) or Barrett True-K (post-corneal refractive surgery eyes) formulas. Intraoperatively, aphakic IA measurements were used for IOL power calculations. Mean absolute refractive prediction error (MAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50, ±0.75 and ±1.00 D were calculated. Refractive predictability was also evaluated in short, normal, and long eyes. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-three eyes were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were observed between the MAE of preoperative formulas and IA for post-hyperopic laser vision correction (LVC), post-myopic LVC, post-radial keratotomy (RK) and normal eyes. For prediction error within ±0.5 D in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes, range of agreement between Barrett True-K and IA ranged from 28% (7/25) of the time in post-RK eyes to 49% (40/81) of the time in post-hyperopic LVC; the corresponding value for Barrett Universal II/IA was 62% (64/103) in normal eyes. When there was disagreement, IA outperformed Barrett True-K in post-hyperopic LVC eyes and Barrett formula outperformed IA in post-myopic LVC, post-RK, and normal eyes. CONCLUSION: IA appears to be comparable to Barrett formulas for IOL power calculations in post-corneal refractive surgery and normal eyes. In post-hyperopic LVC, IA yields better results compared to Barrett True-K formula; in real-life scenarios, IA reveals statistical advantage over the Barrett True-K no history formula for eyes post-hyperopic LVC.

Fórmula Barrett True K en pacientes con catarata operados de cirugía refractiva corneal / The Barrett True-K formula in cataract patients undergoing corneal refractive surgery

Objetivo: Determinar los resultados refractivos en pacientes operados de catarata con cirugía refractiva corneal, según el cálculo del poder dióptrico de la lente intraocular con la fórmula Barrett True K. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio pre-experimental, del tipo antes y después, en el cual fueron incluidos 18 pacientes (31 ojos). En ellos se analizaron variables demográficas y clínicas. La principal variable de salida fue la predictibilidad del componente esférico ± 0,50 D, ± 1,0 D según la longitud axial. Resultados: Fueron estudiados pacientes con un promedio de edad de 59,4 años, predominantemente del sexo femenino (66,7 por ciento). El 77,4 por ciento fue operado con queratotomía radial. Con la cirugía de catarata se produjo una mejora ostensible de la agudeza visual no corregida (mediana preoperatoria: 0,12 y mediana posoperatoria: 0,60). Solo el 9,7 por ciento de los ojos analizados presentó una agudeza visual sin corregir de 20/20 y el 90,3 por ciento de 20/40 o más. La cantidad de ojos con un equivalente esférico de ± 0,50 disminuyó en la medida en que aumentó la longitud axial (corta: 100 por ciento; normal: 57,1 por ciento; larga: 22,7 por ciento), no así la predictibilidad del componente esférico de ± 0,50, que aumentó (corta: 50,0 por ciento; normal: 57,1 por ciento; larga: 63,6 por ciento). Conclusiones: La fórmula Barrett True K resulta útil para el cálculo de la lente intraocular en pacientes operados de catarata y cirugía refractiva corneal previa(AU)

Objective: Determine refractive outcomes in patients undergoing cataract corneal refractive surgery based on intraocular lens dioptric power calculation with the Barrett True-K formula. Methods: A pre-experimental before/after study was conducted of 18 patients (31 eyes). Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed. The main output variable was spherical component predictability ± 0.50 D, ± 1.0 D according to axial length. Results: Mean age was 59.4 years; female sex prevailed (66.7 percent). Of the patients studied, 77.4 percent underwent radial keratotomy. Cataract surgery led to notable uncorrected visual acuity improvement (preoperative mean: 0.12; postoperative mean: 0.60). Only 9.7 percent of the eyes examined had an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20, whereas 90.3 percent had 20/40 or more. The number of eyes with a spherical equivalent of ± 0.50 fell as axial length rose (near: 100 percent; normal: 57.1 percent; far: 22.7 percent), unlike ± 0.50 spherical component predictability, which rose from near: 50.0 percent; normal: 57.1 percent; far: 63.6 percent. Conclusions: The Barrett True-K formula is useful for intraocular lens calculation in patients undergoing previous cataract and corneal refractive surgery(AU)

Comparison of the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas for eyes after corneal refractive surgery.

BACKGROUND: In cataract surgery, calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in patients who have previously received corneal refractive surgery on the same eye presents a clinical challenge. This study aims to compare the accuracy of the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas in predicting the IOL power in eyes following corneal refractive surgery. METHODS: This study analyzed 32 eyes belonging to 28 patients who underwent cataract surgery and IOL implantation after previously undergoing myopic corneal refractive surgery. The IOL power was calculated using the Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas, and the accuracy of the three formulas was compared. RESULTS: The Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and Shammas-PL formulas had a mean arithmetic IOL prediction error of -0.65, -0.39, and -0.46, respectively. The mean numerical errors of the three formulas were significantly different from zero (P<0.001). The smallest median absolute refraction prediction error (median =0.40) belonged to the Barrett True-K formula, which was significantly smaller than that of the Haigis-L formula (median =0.57, P<0.05) but similar to that of the Shammas-PL formula (median =0.49, P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the percentage of eyes within either ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction error across the three formulas. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett True-K formula can predict IOL power in eyes that have previously undergone myopic corneal refractive surgery better than the Haigis-L formula.

Clinical observation of intraocular lens calculation in eyes with previous radial keratotomy / 国际眼科杂志(Guoji Yanke Zazhi)

@#AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of the Barrett True K intraocular lens(IOL)calculation formulas in eyes with previous radial keratotomy(RK).<p>METHODS: From February 2017 to February 2019, 42 eyes of 22 cataract patients with previous RK were selected in our hospital. Two methods were used to calculate IOL refraction before surgery: 1)Selected the smallest anterior surface K value in the area of 3mm central corneal diameter, used SRK/T formula, the target refraction was set at -1.0D; 2)Used Barrett True K on-line calculation formula, the mode of RK was selected and the target refraction was set at -1.0D. Three months after operation, the refractive state of the eyes was examined and the refractive errors calculated by the two methods were compared.<p>RESULTS: The average refractive error of Barrett formula method was 0.61(-0.37, 0.88)3mo after operation, which was significantly lower than that of traditional formula method 0.35(-0.25, 0.63)D(<i>P</i><0.05). There was no significant difference in absolute refractive error between the two methods(<i>P</i>>0.05). The refractive errors of traditional formula method in the range of ±0.5D, ±1.0D, ±2.0D accounted for 21%, 45%, 90% respectively. The refractive errors of Barrett formula method in the range of ±0.5D, ±1.0D, ±2.0D accounted for 31%, 74%, 100% respectively(<i>P</i><0.05).<p>CONCLUSION: Barrett True K online formula applied to cataract patients after RK can achieve satisfactory refractive status.

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Following Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: New Options Using a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare published methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following myopic laser refractive surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 69 patients (69 eyes) who had undergone myopic laser refractive surgery previously and subsequently underwent cataract surgery at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea from January 2010 to June 2016. None of the patients had pre-refractive surgery biometric data available. The Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power (TCRP) 3 and 4 mm (SRK-T and Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power, and Scheimpflug true refractive power (TRP) 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm (SRK-T and Haigis) methods were employed. IOL power required for target refraction was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction, and implanted IOL power and formula accuracy were subsequently compared among calculation methods. RESULTS: Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power 4 mm (Haigis), and Scheimpflug TRP 4 mm (Haigis) formulae showed high predictability, with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of -0.25 ± 0.59, -0.05 ± 1.19, 0.00 ± 0.88, -0.26 ± 1.17, 0.00 ± 1.09, -0.71 ± 1.20, and 0.03 ± 1.25 diopters, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes within 1.0 diopter of target refraction were achieved in 85% of eyes using the calculation methods listed above. Haigis-L, Barrett True-K (no history), and Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis) and TRP 4 mm (Haigis) methods showed comparably low prediction errors, despite the absence of historical patient information.

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods Following Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: New Options Using a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare published methods of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power following myopic laser refractive surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 69 patients (69 eyes) who had undergone myopic laser refractive surgery previously and subsequently underwent cataract surgery at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea from January 2010 to June 2016. None of the patients had pre-refractive surgery biometric data available. The Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug total corneal refractive power (TCRP) 3 and 4 mm (SRK-T and Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power, and Scheimpflug true refractive power (TRP) 3 mm, 4 mm, and 5 mm (SRK-T and Haigis) methods were employed. IOL power required for target refraction was back-calculated using stable post-cataract surgery manifest refraction, and implanted IOL power and formula accuracy were subsequently compared among calculation methods. RESULTS: Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), Wang-Koch-Maloney, Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis), Scheimpflug true net power 4 mm (Haigis), and Scheimpflug TRP 4 mm (Haigis) formulae showed high predictability, with mean arithmetic prediction errors and standard deviations of −0.25 ± 0.59, −0.05 ± 1.19, 0.00 ± 0.88, −0.26 ± 1.17, 0.00 ± 1.09, −0.71 ± 1.20, and 0.03 ± 1.25 diopters, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes within 1.0 diopter of target refraction were achieved in 85% of eyes using the calculation methods listed above. Haigis-L, Barrett True-K (no history), and Scheimpflug TCRP 4 mm (Haigis) and TRP 4 mm (Haigis) methods showed comparably low prediction errors, despite the absence of historical patient information.