Search

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett True-K No History (Barrett TKNH), Barrett TKNH with posterior corneal measurements (Barrett TKNH with PC), Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas in patients with cataract who had prior myopic refractive surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective consecutive case series of patients with prior myopic refractive surgery undergoing cataract extraction. Mean absolute error (MAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) of refraction prediction were compared for each formula. Interactions of each biometry measurement were modeled for each formula to evaluate those with the most significant impact on refraction prediction. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen eyes of 79 patients were analyzed. MAE was 0.40 ± 0.33 diopters (D) for intraoperative aberrometry and 0.42 ± 0.31 D for the Barrett TKNH, 0.38 ± 0.30 D for the Barrett TKNH with PC, 0.47 ± 0.38 D for the Shammas-PL, and 0.56 ± 0.39 D for the Haigis-L formulas. Comparisons between formulas were significant for Barrett TKNH versus Barrett TKNH with PC formulas ( P = .046), Barrett TKNH with PC versus Shammas-PL formulas ( P = .023), and for all comparisons with the Haigis-L formula ( P < .001), and not significant for all other comparisons ( P > .05). Eyes were within ±0.50 D of prediction 73%, 72%, 69%, 62%, and 52% of the time for intraoperative aberrometry, the Barrett TKNH with PC, Barrett TKNH, Shammas-PL, and Haigis-L formulas, respectively. Corneal asphericity (Q value) was significantly associated with prediction error for all five methods. Changes in anterior chamber depth had a significant impact on Shammas-PL prediction errors. CONCLUSIONS: Newer technology using information from the posterior cornea modestly improved outcomes when compared to established methods for intraocular lens selection in eyes that had previous laser refractive surgery for myopia. [ J Refract Surg . 2021;37(1):60–68.]

Purpose: To compare the frequency of posterior capsulotomies in patients receiving a multifocal or monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) of a similar design following cataract extraction. Methods: Four hundred seventeen eyes underwent cataract extraction and IOL implantation; 275 eyes received the AcrySof SN60WF (Alcon Laboratories Inc) one-piece monofocal lens (monofocal group) and 142 eyes received the RESTOR multifocal lens (SN60D3 or SA60D3, Alcon Laboratories Inc) (multifocal group). Surgery was performed by two surgeons at one site. Primary outcome measures were incidence, time of onset, and preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) for those patients receiving posterior capsulotomies. Results: After average 22-month postoperative follow-up (range: 2 to 41 months), 22 (15.49%) eyes in the multifocal group underwent posterior capsulotomies compared with 16 (5.82%) eyes in the monofocal group ( P =.0014). The main indication for Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy in the multifocal group was complaint of poor quality of vision rather than decreased CDVA. The multifocal group underwent capsulotomies after a mean of 8.8 months (range: 1.7 to 29.2 months), whereas the monofocal group required capsulotomies after a mean of 10.4 months (range: 0.8 to 28.6 months) ( P =.559). Mean logMAR CDVA before capsulotomy was 0.113 (range: 0 to 0.6) for the multifocal group and 0.244 (range: 0 to 0.48) for the monofocal group ( P =.073). Conclusions: Use of the RESTOR multifocal IOL in clinical practice may result in more frequent Nd:YAG laser capsulotomies. Reasons for this may include increased visual demands of patients receiving presbyopic-correcting IOLs or complex visual phenomena associated with the interaction of multifocal optics and posterior capsule opacification.