Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery.

Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Ophthalmologic Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, USA.
Current opinion in ophthalmology (Impact Factor: 2.49). 08/2008; 19(4):357-62. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282fec43e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Corneal refractive procedures have become increasingly popular over the past decade, allowing patients to have excellent uncorrected visual acuity and spectacle independence. As these individuals mature, many will eventually undergo cataract surgery. With the advances in modern cataract surgery and lens implant technology, particularly presbyopic intraocular lens implants, patients and physicians have greater expectations regarding visual outcomes and independence from glasses after cataract surgery. Therefore, it is important to understand methods to accurately determine intraocular lens power calculation after keratorefractive procedures to avoid refractive surprises and patient dissatisfaction.
In this review article, we provide an overview of intraocular lens power determination after corneal refractive surgery, highlighting sources of errors and potential methods to improve the accuracy of the lens power estimation.
Newer methods to address errors in intraocular lens power calculations after keratorefractive surgery represent a paradigm shift from the previous gold standard of the clinical history method. Understanding the advantages and limitations of the various methods may be beneficial in obtaining more accurate estimations of the intraocular lens power after corneal refractive surgery, resulting in improved visual outcomes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the refractive outcome of cataract surgery in eyes with keratoconus. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 64 consecutive patients (92 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of a spherical intraocular lens (IOL). We recorded the method of refractive correction and the effect of the keratometry (K) on the biometry prediction error (BPE). 35 eyes had mild keratoconus (mean K<48 dioptres (D)), 40 had moderate keratoconus (mean K 48 D to 55 D) and 17 had severe keratoconus (mean K>55 D). Actual K values were used in all eyes with mild or moderate keratoconus with a target refraction of approximately -1.0 D in mild keratoconus and -1.5 D in moderate keratoconus that resulted in a mean BPE of 0.0 D and +0.3 D, respectively. The actual K values were used in eight of the 17 eyes with severe keratoconus with a mean target refraction of -5.4 D, which resulted in a mean BPE of +6.8 D. In the remaining nine eyes, a standard K value of 43.25 D was used with a mean target refraction of -1.8 D, which resulted in a mean BPE of +0.6 D. Using the actual K values with a target of low myopia is a suitable option for spherical IOL selection for eyes with a mean K of ≤55 D. When there is severe keratoconus, the use of actual K values can result in a large hyperopic error and the use of standard K value in these eyes should be considered.
    The British journal of ophthalmology 08/2013; · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study evaluated the ray tracing method [total corneal refractive power (TCRP)] in a Pentacam apparatus (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) for postoperative keratometry measurement after myopic photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Manifest refraction (MR) and Pentacam analyses were performed preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively after the PRK (STAR S4 IR CustomVue; Abbott Medical Optics/Visx) in 49 right eyes from 49 patients (age, 25.42 ± 3.51 years). Postoperative corneal power was calculated using the clinical history method (CHM) and compared with postoperatively measured simulated keratometry (simK), true net power (TNP) at 3 mm, and pupil-centered TCRP at the center, 1, 3, and 4 mm (TCRP0, TCRP1, TCRP3, and TCRP4). Vertex-distance-adjusted refractive change (delta-MR) at the corneal plane was also compared with various keratometric changes (delta-K). Postoperative TCRP0, TCRP1, TCRP3, and TCRP4 showed no significant difference compared with that of the CHM. Postoperative simK was significantly higher than that of the CHM, whereas the TNP was significantly lower compared with that of the CHM. The delta-Ks measured by simK, TNP, and TCRPs were significantly smaller than delta-MR, and delta-TCRP4 showed the least difference [mean ± SD, 0.28 ± 0.55 diopters (D)] with delta-MR. The 95% limit of agreement between delta-MR and delta-TCRP4 was -0.85 to 1.31 D. The difference between delta-TCRP4 and delta-MR was <0.5 D in 55.1% and <1.0 D in 87.8% of the eyes studied. Although postoperative TCRPs showed no significant difference with CHM, delta-MR was still underestimated after myopic PRK.
    Cornea 12/2013; · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods for post-myopic excimer laser surgery patients without previous refractive surgery data using the Holladay IOL Consultant Program and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) IOL Power Calculator. Wang Vision Cataract and LASIK Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Case series. Eight methods were used to calculate IOL power: Holladay 2 partial coherence interferometry (PCI)-K, Holladay 2 FlatK, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas No-History, Haigis-L, ASCRS-Average, ASCRS-Min, and ASCRS-Max. The optimum IOL power corresponding to the target refraction was back-calculated using the stable post-cataract surgery refraction and implanted IOL power. Using the optimum IOL power, the predicted IOL power error and the resultant refractive error with each method were calculated and compared. The Holladay 2 FlatK method was most accurate for IOL power calculation, followed by the Holladay 2 PCI-K, ASCRS-Min, Wang-Koch-Maloney, ASCRS-Average, Shammas No-History, Haigis-L, and ASCRS-Max. Statistically significant differences were observed between Holladay 2 FlatK and Holladay 2 PCI-K (P<.05), Wang-Koch-Maloney and ASCRS-Average (P<.05), and Haigis-L and ASCRS-Max (P<.01). No statistically significant differences were observed between the Holladay 2 PCI-K, ASCRS-Min, and Wang-Koch-Maloney or between the ASCRS-Average, Shammas No-History, and Haigis-L (both P>.05). The Holladay 2 FlatK method provided the most accurate IOL power in eyes without previous myopic laser surgery data. If the Holladay IOL Consultant Program is unavailable, the ASCRS methods can be used; the ASCRS-Min represents the most accurate method. No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
    Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 07/2013; · 2.75 Impact Factor