Phacoemulsification and calculation of intraocular lenses in patients given keratorefractive surgery. Part 2

Effective rehabilitation of patients with cataracts who underwent keratorefractive surgeries requires that the optical power of the IOL be calculated correctly to avoid hyperopic error. The purpose of the 2nd part of the research (for the 1st part, see ROJ, 2021; 14 (2): 55–58) is to present the results of cataract phacoemulsification in patients subjected to keratorefractive surgery based on the author’s algorithm for calculating the optical power of the IOL. Material and methods. The algorithm used optical biometry with an IOL-Master device. The main technique of improving the accuracy of IOL calculation after keratorefractive operations has been to introduce amendments to standard IOL calculation formulas. This work proposes an alternative, which consists in using the Hoffer Q formula, as it is more consistent with changes in the anterior segment of the myopic eye after keratorefractive surgery than other basic. The main distinguishing feature of the Hoffer Q formula is that the corneal refraction is not converted into the radius of curvature but is applied directly as the optical power of a “thin lens”. Results. The empirical customized correction was +1.0 D with regard to the estimated planned postoperative refraction (for patients with initial myopia from -3 to -9 D). The use of the “thin lens” principle made it possible to extrapolate this formula and apply it after LASIK surgery and after radial keratotomy. Conclusion. The proposed technique of IOL calculation was implemented for cataract phacoemulsification in over 200 patients who underwent keratorefractive surgeries. No cases of hyperopic shift of postoperative refraction were noted. The deviation from the planned myopic refraction did not exceed 1.0 D.

Use of various keratometry data (ring and zone) in trifocal IOL calculation

Purpose. To compare the results of trifocal IOL calculation using various corneal tomographic data (ring and zone). Methods. This retrospective study involved 46 patients (46 eyes), underwent cataract surgery with trifocal IOL implantation (AcrySof IQ PanOptix). The calculation was performed using Tomey OA-2000 according to 2 formulas (Barrett II Universal, Olsen). Keratometry values included Km (the average of two main meridians of a cornea) provided by Pentacam HR Power Distribution Apex map, which describes total corneal refractive power (TCRP) with diameter of 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 mm on a ring and zone. Mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) predicted postoperative refraction errors were assessed after surgery. Results. Mean Km value on 3 mm zone and ring was: 42.75±1,46 D and 42,91±1,43 D, respectively (p<0,0001). Mean Km on 4 mm zone and ring was: 42.6±1.5 D and 43.3 ± 1.5 D, respectively (p <0.005). Mean Km value on 5 mm zone and ring was: 43,09±1,5 D and 43,55±1,48 D, respectively (p<0,0001). Calculations using the Barrett II Universal formula revealed significant difference between MAE and MedAE of the predicted postoperative refraction on 5mm zone and ring (p=0.045). When using the Olsen formula in the calculations, significant difference was revealed using the Km data with a diameter of 3 mm and 5 mm (p=0.001 и p=0.009, respectively). The calculation on 3 mm ring was more accurate than for 3 mm zone. With a 5 mm diameter, the calculation is more accurate according to the zone data. Conclusion. Mean Km value on Power Distribution Apex map according to ring is significantly greater then according to zone. 1) The calculation of the trifocal IOL based on the TCRP zone data is reliably more accurate than the ring data according to both formulas (Barrett II Universal and Olsen) with a diameter of 5 mm. 2) According to the Olsen formula with a diameter of 3 mm, the calculation of the optical power of trifocal IOL based on TCRP ring data is more accurate. Key words: IOL calculation, Trifocal IOL, corneal topography

Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome

To compare refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in pseudoexfoliation syndrome (PEX) and control eyes and to investigate the accuracy of 3 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in these eyes. In this prospective comparative study 42 eyes (PEX group) and 38 eyes (control group) of 80 patients were included. The follow-up was 3 months. The refractive prediction error (RPE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentages of eyes within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.5 D, ± 1.0 D and ± 2.0 D of prediction error were calculated. Three IOL calculation formulas (SRK/T, Barrett Universal II and Hill-RBF) were evaluated. PEX produced statistically significantly higher mean absolute errors and lower percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D than control eyes in all investigated IOL calculation formulas. There were no statistically significant differences in the median absolute errors between the 3 formulas in either PEX or control eyes. Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery are statistically significantly worse in PEX than in control eyes. All three IOL calculation formulas produced similar results in both PEX and control eyes.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT04783909.

Corneal topographic ring vs zone in trifocal IOL calculation

Purpose. To compare the results of trifocal IOL calculation using various corneal topographic data (ring and zone). Methods. This retrospective study involved 35 patients (40 eyes), underwent cataract surgery (FLACS) with trifocal IOL implantation (AcrySof IQ PanOptix). The calculation was performed using IOL-Master 500 according to 4 formulas (Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay 1, SRK / T) and Tomey OA-2000 according to 2 formulas (Barrett II Universal, Olsen). Topographic values included Km collected from Pentacam HR Power Distribution Apex map with diameter of 3.0 and 5.0 mm on a ring and zone. Predicted and actual refraction were compared after surgery. Results. Mean Km value on 3 mm zone and ring was: 42.75±1,46 D and 42.91±1.43 D, respectively (p<0.0001). Mean Km value on 5 mm zone and ring was: 43.09±1.5 D and 43.55±1.48 D, respectively (p<0.0001). According to 6 formulas Mean Absolute Error (MAE) calculated using 3 mm zone data was significantly less then on 3mm ring: 0.3± 0.28; 0.48±0.3 and Median Absolute Error (MedAE) was 0.225 (0.3); 0.465 (0.397) respectively (p<0.01). The same data were obtained on 5mm zone and ring: MAE was 0.29±0.28; 0.35±0.29 and MedAE amounted to 0.225 (0.3); 0.29 (0.38) respectively (p=0.02). Conclusion. Mean Km value on Power Distribution Apex map according to ring is significantly greater then according to zone. 1) Predicted refraction using corneal topographic ring data deviates towards hyperopia relative to the actual postoperative refraction. 2) The use of topographic data on zone allows to obtain more accurate calculation of trifocal IOL than when using the data on the ring. Key words: IOL calculation, Trifocal IOL, corneal topography.

Comparative clinical accuracy analysis of the newly developed ZZ IOL and four existing IOL formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes

Background Intraocular lens (IOL) calculation using traditional formulas for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes can yield inaccurate results. This study aimed to compare the clinical accuracy of the newly developed Zhang & Zheng (ZZ) formula with previously reported IOL formulas. Study design Retrospective study. Methods Post-corneal refractive surgery eyes were assessed for IOL power using the ZZ, Haigis-L, Shammas, Barrett True-K (no history), and ray tracing (C.S.O Sirius) IOL formulas, and their accuracy was compared. No pre-refractive surgery information was used in the calculations. Results This study included 38 eyes in 26 patients. ZZ IOL yielded a lower arithmetic IOL prediction error (PE) compared with ray tracing (P = 0.04), whereas the other formulas had values like that of ZZ IOL (P > 0.05). The arithmetic IOL PE for the ZZ IOL formula was not significantly different from zero (P = 0.96). ZZ IOL yielded a lower absolute IOL PE compared with Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.02), Barrett true K (P = 0.03), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The variance of the mean arithmetic IOL PE for ZZ IOL was significantly smaller than those of Shammas (P < 0.01), Haigis-L (P = 0.03), Barrett True K (P = 0.02), and ray tracing (P < 0.01). The percentages of eyes within ± 0.5 D of the target refraction with the ZZ IOL, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True-K, and ray-tracing formulas were 86.8 %, 45.5 %, 66.7 %, 73.7 %, and 50.0 %, respectively (P < 0.05 for Shammas and ray tracing vs. ZZ IOL). Conclusions The ZZ IOL formula might offer superior outcomes for IOL power calculation for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes without prior refractive data.

Lenstar LS 900 versus Pentacam-AXL: analysis of refractive outcomes and predicted refraction

Analysis of refractive outcomes, using biometry data collected with a new biometer (Pentacam-AXL, OCULUS, Germany) and a reference biometer (Lenstar LS 900, HAAG-STREIT AG, Switzerland), in order to assess differences in the predicted and actual refraction using different formulas. Prospective, institutional study, in which intraocular lens (IOL) calculation was performed using the Haigis, SRK/T and Hoffer Q formulas with the two systems in patients undergoing cataract surgery between November 2016 and August 2017. Four to 6 weeks after surgery, the spherical equivalent (SE) was derived from objective refraction. Mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE) and the median absolute error (MedAE) were calculated. The percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, ± 1.00, and ± 2.00 D of MAE was determined. 104 eyes from 76 patients, 35 males (46.1%), underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. Mean SE after surgery was − 0.29 ± 0.46 D. Mean prediction error (PE) using the SRK/T, Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas with the Lenstar was significantly different (p > 0.0001) from PE calculated with the Pentacam in all three formulas. Percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D MAE were larger with the Lenstar device, using all three formulas. The difference between the actual refractive error and the predicted refractive error is consistently lower when using Lenstar. The Pentacam-AXL user should be alert to the critical necessity of constant optimization in order to obtain optimal refractive results.

Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation results before and after glaucoma surgery

Aim to compare intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation before and after different types glaucoma procedures. Material and methods.Into the study, 115 patients were included, divided into 3 groups: group 1 patients, in whom sinustrabeculectomy was performed (n= 86); group 2 patients with implanted Ex-PRESS shunt (n= 19), group 3 patients after Ahmed glaucoma valve implantation (n= 10). For each patient before surgery optical biometry (IOL-Master 500) was performed and IOL power calculation using Barrett Universal II Formula (target refraction emmetropia). Baseline data were compared with corresponding examinations results obtained in 6 months after glaucoma procedure, to evaluate its effect on main biometric parameters of the eye and the IOL calculation accuracy. Results.Despite significant changes of optical and anatomic indices, mean values of target refraction before and after glaucoma surgery did not differ significantly: 0.00 0.03 versus 0.03 0.52 D (p= 0.628), 0.00 0.1 versus 0.19 0.61 D (p= 0.173), 0.04 0.08 versus 0.11 0.42 D (p= 0.269) for groups, respectively. However, there was a pronounced trend to the increase of target refraction data scattering. Conclusion.Glaucoma procedures cause changes of biometrical parameters of the eye, which leads to decrease in accuracy of IOL calculation. Consequently, when choosing intraocular lens, it is recommended to use measurement results obtained after glaucoma surgery. Keywords:intraocular lens; IOL power calculation; glaucoma; sinustrabeculectomy; Ex-PRESS shunt; Ahmed glaucoma valve; biometry; phacoemulsification; axial length; anterior chamber depth; keratometry.