Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.59(9) > 1101018

TOOLS
Jung and Jung: Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Refractive Surgery Provided by the ASCRS
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2018;59(9):827-833.

Published online: 25 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2018.59.9.827

Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods after Refractive Surgery Provided by the ASCRS

Soyeon Jung, MD, Jiwon Jung, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

Address reprint requests to Jiwon Jung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University Hospital, #27 Inhang-ro, Jung-gu, Incheon 22332, Korea Tel: 82-32-890-2400, Fax: 82-32-890-2417 E-mail: panch325@gmail.com

Received 22 March 2018       Revised 25 June 2018       Accepted 28 August 2018

Copyright © 2018 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

Methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations for cataract surgery after myopic corneal refractive surgery were compared.

Methods

The medical records of 23 eyes from 20 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Five methods – Haigis L and Barrett no history method from Post-Refractive IOL Calculator of American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), Shammas no history method, Haigis suite from IOL Master 700, and clinical history method – were used.

Results

The Barrette no history method from the ASCRS showed the lowest arithmetic errors, while the Haigis-L from the ASCRS showed the lowest absolute prediction errors (−0.38 ± 0.99 diopters [D] and 0.76 ± 0.68 D, respectively). The percentages of refractive prediction errors within 0.50 D and 1.00 D of the Barrett no history method were 52.2% and 82.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

The Barrette no history method and Haigis-L from the ASCRS showed the smallest errors in this study. The Barrett no history method showed a high percentage of refractive prediction errors within 0.50 D and 1.00 D.

Keywords: American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) intraocular lens (IOL) calculator, Cataract, Corneal refractive surgery, IOL power calculation

References

1. Abulafia A, Hill WE, Wang L, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. Asia-Pac J Ophthalmology. 2017; 6:332–8.
2. Hoffer KJ. Intraocular lens power calculation after previous laser refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009; 35:759–65.
crossref
3. Shammas HJ, Shammas MC. No-history method of intraocular lens power calculation for cataract surgery after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007; 33:31–6.
crossref
4. Potvin R, Hill W. New algorithm for intraocular lens power abdominals after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis based on rotating Scheimpflug camera data. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41:339–47.
5. Barrett GD. An improved universal theoretical formula for intraocular lens power prediction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993; 19:713–20.
crossref
6. Patel RH, Karp CL, Yoo SH, et al. Cataract surgery after refractive surgery. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2016; 56:169–80.
crossref
7. Shammas MC, Shammas HJ. Post-LASIK IOL power abdominals: where are we in 2012. Curr Ophthalmol Rep. 2013; 1:39–44.
8. Choi DM, Thompson RW Jr, Price FW Jr. Incisional refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002; 13:237–41.
crossref
9. Peyman GA, Larson B, Raichand M, Andrews AH. Modification of rabbit corneal curvature with use of carbon dioxide laser burns. Ophthalmic Surg. 1980; 11:325–9.
10. Kugler LJ, Wang MX. Lasers in refractive surgery: history, abdominal, and future. Appl Opt. 2010; 49:F1–9.
11. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, et al. Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (Lond). 2009; 23:149–52.
crossref
12. Abulafia A, Hill WE, Koch DD, et al. Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016; 42:363–9.
crossref
13. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–9.
crossref
14. Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW. Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMaster and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:262–7.
crossref
15. Bang S, Edell E. Yu Q, et al. Accuracy of intraocular lens abdominals using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology. 2011; 118:503–6.
16. Zaldivar R, Shultz MC, Davidorf JM, Holladay JT. Intraocular lens power calculations in patients with extreme myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26:668–74.
crossref
17. Lege BA, Haigis W. Laser interference biometry versus ultrasound biometry in certain clinical conditions. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004; 242:8–12.
crossref
18. Randleman JB, Hewitt SM, Stulting RD. Refractive changes after posterior segment surgery. Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2004; 17:521–6. v-vi.
crossref
19. Slusher MM, Ford JG, Busbee B. Clinically significant corneal abdominal and pars plana vitrectomy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers. 2002; 33:5–8.
20. Hayashi H, Hayashi K, Nakao F, Hayashi F. Corneal shape changes after scleral buckling surgery. Ophthalmology. 1997; 104:831–7.
crossref
21. Weinberger D, Lichter H, Loya N, et al. Corneal topographic changes after retinal and vitreous surgery. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:1521–4.
crossref
22. Wirbelauer C, Hoerauf H, Roider J, Laqua H. Corneal shape changes after parsplana vitrectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1998; 236:822–8.

Figure 1.
Box-plots of arithmetic (A) and absolute refraction prediction errors (B) of patients. It shows the distribution of errors of prediction by five methods. (A) 1-sample t test was used to determine whether the arithmetic refraction prediction errors were significantly different from zero and p-values were presented. (B) Wilcox signed rank test was performed to determine the statistical significance for absolute refraction prediction errors and p-values were presented. ASCRS = American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. º = outliers; * = extreme outliers.
jkos-59-827f1.tif
Table 1.
Demographics and characteristics of patients
Data Value Median (range)
Age (years) 51.83 ± 8.28 52 (39, 67)
Male:female 11:9 –
OD:OS 13:10 –
Ocular OP history (except refractive surgery) (n, %) 8 (34.78) –
 Scleral buckling 2 (8.70) –
 Pars plana vitrectomy 6 (26.09) –
LASIK:LASEK:PRK 16:2:5 –
Pre-refractive surgery SE (n = 7, D) –6.87 ± 2.37 –6.50 (−10.00, −4.25)
Pre-refractive surgery mean K (n = 7, D) 42.86 ± 0.98 42.75 (41.00, 43.75)
Post-refractive surgery SE (n = 7, D) –1.05 ± 0.60 –0.75 (−2.00, −0.50)
Pre-cataract surgery SE (D) –4.98 ± 7.18 –4.75 (−17.38, 11.75)
Pre-cataract surgery mean K (D) 38.26 ± 2.09 38.50 (−18.50, 11.75)
Post-cataract surgery SE (D) –0.61 ± 0.91 –0.74 (−2.25, 1.50)
Axial length(mm) 27.80 ± 1.94 27.80 (24.12, 31.40)
IOL diopter (D) 17.70 ± 3.46 18.50 (11.00, 23.00)
Post-cataract surgery complication (n, %)    
 Posterior capsule rupture 0 (0) –
 Retinal detachment 1 (4.35) –
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation unless othe rwise indicated.  

OD = oculus dexter; OS = oculus sinister; OP = operation; LASIK = laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis; LASEK = laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy; PRK = photorefractive keratectomy; SE = spherical equivalent; IOL = intraocular lens.

Table 2.
Mean arithmetic and absolute refraction prediction errors of patients
Formula/method Refraction predication errors (D)
Arithmetic
 Absolute
Mean ± SD Median (range) Mean ± SD Median (range)
ASCRS-Haigis L –0.49 ± 0.91 –0.42 (−2.917, 1.320) 0.76 ± 0.68 0.55 (0.080, 2.917)
ASCRS-Barrett no history –0.38 ± 0.99 –0.33 (−2.725, 0.975) 0.79 ± 0.70 0.50 (0.020, 2.725)
Shammas –0.66 ± 1.08 –0.56 (−3.259, 1.100) 0.98 ± 0.79 0.66 (0.048, 3.259)
Haigis suite (IOLMaster 700®, n = 10) –0.54 ± 1.02 –0.42 (−1.965, 0.965) 0.92 ± 0.67 0.70 (0.220, 1.965)
Clinical history (n = 7, SRK/T, A-scan) 1.02 ± 1.91 0.20 (−0.654, 4.965) 1.25 ± 1.75 0.65 (0.055, 4.965)

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

ASCRS = American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery; SRK/T = Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/Theoretical.

Table 3.
Percentage of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D and ±1.00 D from target refraction of subjects
Formula/method Percentage (%)
Within ±0.25 D Within ±0.5 D Within ±0.75 D Within ±1.0 D
ASCRS-Haigis L 21.7 47.8 65.2 65.2
ASCRS-Barrett no history 13.0 52.2 65.3 82.6
Shammas 13.0 34.8 52.2 60.9
Haigis suite (IOLMaster 700®, n = 10) 10.0 50.0 50.0 60.0
Clinical history (n = 7) 42.9 42.9 57.1 71.4

ASCRS = American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery.

TOOLS
Similar articles