Search

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of different corneal powers for intraocular (IOL) power calculation in combined Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) and cataract surgery and investigate whether preoperative parameters correlate to the prediction error (PE). METHODS: This prospective case series involved patients with Fuchs endothelial dystrophy receiving combined DMEK and cataract surgery. Preoperatively, patients underwent optical biometry and anterior segment OCT (AS-OCT). AS-OCT measurements were repeated 6 months postoperatively, when final refraction was assessed. The PE was calculated using the preoperative average keratometry (Kave) measured by the optical biometer and User Group for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB) constants. It was also calculated, after constant optimization, using the preoperative Kave from both devices and the total corneal power (TCP) measured by AS-OCT, as well as the postoperative Kave and TCP measured by AS-OCT. RESULTS: ULIB constants resulted in the highest hyperopic PE (P <.0001). Constant optimization improved the results, because the PE was zeroed out and the absolute PEs decreased. No significant difference was found among the Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane, and SRK/T formulas. Further improvement was achieved with the postoperative Kave and TCP, although the accuracy remained moderate. The PE based on preoperative corneal measurements was correlated to the amount of corneal flattening; the latter could be predicted by multiple linear regression accounting for anterior and posterior corneal radii (P =.0002) and was correlated to the preoperative anterior/posterior ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Constant optimization is beneficial for combined DMEK and phacoemulsification. Predicting postoperative corneal flattening may improve the results of IOL power accuracy. [J Refract Surg. 2022;38(7):435–442.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas for myopic eyes requiring negative diopter powered IOLs., Design: Retrospective case series., Setting: K… hospital and Y… Hospital, …, …., Methods: Sixty-one eyes that underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a negative power IOL were investigated. The trueness, precision and accuracy of IOL power calculation were assessed for the Barrett Universal II (BUII), EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer QST, Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas using the Eyetemis online tool. The analysis was performed using 1) the ULIB IOL constants and 2) after constant optimization., Results: With ULIB constants, the Haigis, Holladay 1 and SRK/T resulted in a hyperopic mean prediction error (PE) >1.00 diopter (D), which was significantly different from zero (adjusted p <0.05). The mean PE of the remaining formulas was closer to zero. The absolute PE was significantly higher with the Holladay 1 and SRK/T (adjusted p <0.05) with respect to the remaining formulas. After constant optimization, the outcomes of traditional formulas improved and no statistically significant differences were found among any of the formulas in terms of trueness, precision and accuracy. The percentage of eyes with an absolute PE within 0.50 D was low (<50%) even after constant optimization., Conclusions: With ULIB constants, the BUII, EVO 2.0 and Hoffer QST were more accurate than traditional formulas in eyes with negative-diopter IOLs. The results of IOL power calculation in these eyes remain poor even after constant optimization., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)