New Approach for Correction of Error Associated With Keratometric Estimation of Corneal Power in Keratoconus

The aim of this study was to obtain the exact value of the keratometric index (nkexact) and to clinically validate a variable keratometric index (nkadj) that minimizes this error. Methods: The nkexact value was determined by obtaining differences (DPc) between keratometric corneal power (Pk) and Gaussian corneal power (PGauss c ) equal to 0. The nkexact was defined as the value associated with an equivalent difference in the magnitude of DPc for extreme values of posterior corneal radius (r2c) for each anterior corneal radius value (r1c). This nkadj was considered for the calculation of the adjusted corneal power (Pkadj). Values of r1c ∈ (4.2, 8.5) mm and r2c ∈ (3.1, 8.2) mm were considered. Differences of True Net Power with PGauss c , Pkadj, and Pk(1.3375) were calculated in a clinical sample of 44 eyes with keratoconus. Results: nkexact ranged from 1.3153 to 1.3396 and nkadj from 1.3190 to 1.3339 depending on the eye model analyzed. All the nkadj values adjusted perfectly to 8 linear algorithms. Differences between Pkadj and PGauss c did not exceed 60.7 D (Diopter). Clinically, nk = 1.3375 was not valid in any case. Pkadj and True Net Power and Pk(1.3375) and Pkadj were statistically different (P , 0.01), whereas no differences were found between PGauss c and Pkadj (P . 0.01). Conclusions: The use of a single value of nk for the calculation of the total corneal power in keratoconus has been shown to be imprecise, leading to inaccuracies in the detection and classification of this corneal condition. Furthermore, our study shows the relevance of corneal thickness in corneal power calculations in keratoconus.

Comparison of the predictability of refractive cylinder correction by laser in situ keratomileusis in eyes with low or high ocular residual astigmatism

Purpose: To compare the manifest refractive cylinder (MRC) predictability of myopic astigmatism laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) between eyes with low and high ocular residual astigmatism (ORA). Setting: London Vision Clinic, London, United Kingdom. Design: Retrospective case study. Methods: The ORA was considered the vector difference between the MRC and the corneal astigmatism. The index of success (IoS), difference vector ÷ MRC, was analyzed for different groups as follows: stage 1, low ORA (ORA ÷ MRC <1), high ORA (ORA ÷ MRC ≥1); stage 2, low ORA group reduced to match the high ORA group for MRC; stage 3, grouped by ORA magnitude with low ORA (<0.50 diopters [D]), mid ORA (0.50 to 1.24 D), and high ORA (≥1.25 D); stage 4, high ORA group subdivided into low (<0.75 D) and high (≥0.75 D) corneal astigmatism. Results: For stage 1, the mean preoperative MRC and mean IoS were −1.32 D ± 0.65 (SD) (range −0.55 to −3.77 D) and 0.27, respectively, for low ORA and −0.79 ± 0.20 D (range −0.56 to −2.05 D) and 0.37, respectively, for high ORA. For stage 2, the mean IoS increased to 0.32 for low ORA. For stage 3, the mean IoS was 0.28, 0.29, and 0.31 for low ORA, mid ORA, and high ORA, respectively. For stage 4, the mean IoS was 0.20 for high ORA/low corneal astigmatism and 0.35 for high ORA/high corneal astigmatism. Conclusions: The MRC predictability was slightly worse in eyes with high ORA when grouped by the ORA ÷ MRC. Matching for the MRC and grouping by ORA magnitude resulted in similar predictability; however, eyes with high ORA and high corneal astigmatism were less predictable.