Minimizing the IOL Power Error Induced by Keratometric Power

Purpose. To evaluate theoretically in normal eyes the influence on IOL power (PIOL) calculation of the use of a keratometric index (nk) and to analyze and validate preliminarily the use of an adjusted keratometric index (nkadj) in the IOL power calculation (PIOLadj). Methods. A model of variable keratometric index (nkadj) for corneal power calculation (Pc) was used for IOL power calculation (named PIOLadj). Theoretical differences ($PIOL) between the new proposed formula (PIOLadj) and which is obtained through Gaussian optics (PIOL Gauss) were determined using Gullstrand and Le Grand eye models. The proposed new formula for IOL power calculation (PIOLadj) was prevalidated clinically in 81 eyes of 81 candidates for corneal refractive surgery and compared with Haigis, HofferQ, Holladay, and SRK/T formulas. Results. A theoretical PIOL underestimation greater than 0.5 diopters was present in most of the cases when nk = 1.3375 was used. If nkadj was used for Pc calculation, a maximal calculated error in $PIOL of T0.5 diopters at corneal vertex in most cases was observed independently from the eye model, r1c, and the desired postoperative refraction. The use of nkadj in IOL power calculation (PIOLadj) could be valid with effective lens position optimization nondependent of the corneal power. Conclusions. The use of a single value of nk for Pc calculation can lead to significant errors in PIOL calculation that may explain some IOL power overestimations with conventional formulas. These inaccuracies can be minimized by using the new PIOLadj based on the algorithm of nkadj.

Effect of pharmacological pupil dilation on measurements and iol power calculation made using the new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer

Purpose: to determine whether pupil dilation affects biometric measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation made using the new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer (IOLMaster 700©; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Procedures: eighty-one eyes of 81 patients evaluated for cataract surgery were prospectively examined using the IOLMaster 700© before and after pupil dilation with tropicamide 1%. The measurements made were: axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), mean keratometry (MK), white-to-white distance (WTW) and pupil diameter (PD). Holladay II and SRK/T formulas were used to calculate IOL power. Agreement between measurement modes (with and without dilation) was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Results: mean patient age was 75.17 ± 7.54 years (range: 57–92). Of the variables determined, CCT, ACD, LT and WTW varied significantly according to pupil dilation. Excellent intraobserver correlation was observed between measurements made before and after pupil dilation. Mean IOL power calculation using the Holladay 2 and SRK/T formulas were unmodified by pupil dilation. Conclusions: the use of pupil dilation produces statistical yet not clinically significant differences in some IOLMaster 700© measurements. However, it does not affect mean IOL power calculation.

Error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position with a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal intraocular lens

AIM: To evaluate the prediction error in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation for a rotationally asymmetric refractive multifocal IOL and the impact on this error of the optimization of the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and the prediction of the effective lens position (ELP). METHODS: Retrospective study including a total of 25 eyes of 13 patients (age, 50 to 83y) with previous cataract surgery with implantation of the Lentis Mplus LS-312 IOL (Oculentis GmbH, Germany). In all cases, an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) was calculated based on Gaussian optics using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for the estimation of the corneal power (Pkadj) and on a new value for ELP (ELPadj) obtained by multiple regression analysis. This PIOLadj was compared with the IOL power implanted (PIOLReal) and the value proposed by three conventional formulas (Haigis, Hoffer Q and Holladay). RESULTS: PIOLReal was not significantly different than PIOLadj and Holladay IOL power (P>0.05). In the Bland and Altman analysis, PIOLadj showed lower mean difference (-0.07 D) and limits of agreement (of 1.47 and -1.61 D) when compared to PIOLReal than the IOL power value obtained with the Holladay formula. Furthermore, ELPadj was significantly lower than ELP calculated with other conventional formulas (P<0.01) and was found to be dependent on axial length, anterior chamber depth and Pkadj. CONCLUSION: Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery with implantation of the multifocal IOL Lentis Mplus LS-312 can be optimized by minimizing the keratometric error and by estimating ELP using a mathematical expression dependent on anatomical factors.

Positional accommodative intraocular lens power error induced by the estimation of the corneal power and the effective lens position

Purpose: To evaluate the predictability of the refractive correction achieved with a positional accommodating intraocular lenses (IOL) and to develop a potential optimization of it by minimizing the error associated with the keratometric estimation of the corneal power and by developing a predictive formula for the effective lens position (ELP). Materials and Methods: Clinical data from 25 eyes of 14 patients (age range, 52–77 years) and undergoing cataract surgery with implantation of the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD (Bausch and Lomb) were retrospectively reviewed. In all cases, the calculation of an adjusted IOL power (PIOLadj) based on Gaussian optics considering the residual refractive error was done using a variable keratometric index value (nkadj) for corneal power estimation with and without using an estimation algorithm for ELP obtained by multiple regression analysis (ELPadj). PIOLadj was compared to the real IOL power implanted (PIOLReal, calculated with the SRK-T formula) and also to the values estimated by the Haigis, HofferQ, and Holladay I formulas. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between PIOLReal and PIOLadj when ELPadj was used (P = 0.10), with a range of agreement between calculations of 1.23 D. In contrast, PIOLReal was significantly higher when compared to PIOLadj without using ELPadj and also compared to the values estimated by the other formulas. Conclusions: Predictable refractive outcomes can be obtained with the accommodating IOL Crystalens HD using a variable keratometric index for corneal power estimation and by estimating ELP with an algorithm dependent on anatomical factors and age.

Theoretical evaluation of the cataract extraction-refraction-implantation techniques for intraocular lens power calculation

PURPOSE: To evaluate theoretically three previously published formulae that use intra-operative aphakic refractive error to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power, not necessitating pre-operative biometry. The formulae are as follows: IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 2.01 [Ianchulev et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.31 (2005) 1530]; IOL power (D) = Aphakic refraction x 1.75 [Mackool et al., J. Cataract Refract. Surg.32 (2006) 435]; IOL power (D) = 0.07x(2) + 1.27x + 1.22, where x = aphakic refraction [Leccisotti, Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol.246 (2008) 729]. METHODS: Gaussian first order calculations were used to determine the relationship between intra-operative aphakic refractive error and the IOL power required for emmetropia in a series of schematic eyes incorporating varying corneal powers, pre-operative crystalline lens powers, axial lengths and post-operative IOL positions. The three previously published formulae, based on empirical data, were then compared in terms of IOL power errors that arose in the same schematic eye variants. RESULTS: An inverse relationship exists between theoretical ratio and axial length. Corneal power and initial lens power have little effect on calculated ratios, whilst final IOL position has a significant impact. None of the three empirically derived formulae are universally accurate but each is able to predict IOL power precisely in certain theoretical scenarios. The formulae derived by Ianchulev et al. and Leccisotti are most accurate for posterior IOL positions, whereas the Mackool et al. formula is most reliable when the IOL is located more anteriorly. CONCLUSION: Final IOL position was found to be the chief determinant of IOL power errors. Although the A-constants of IOLs are known and may be accurate, a variety of factors can still influence the final IOL position and lead to undesirable refractive errors. Optimum results using these novel formulae would be achieved in myopic eyes.

Mensurações do bulbo ocular e cálculo do poder dióptrico da lente intraocular em miniporcos brasileiros

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer

Aim To assess the accuracy and reproducibility of biometry undertaken with the Aladdin (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan) in comparison with the current gold standard device, the IOLMaster 500 (Zeiss, Jena, Germany). Setting University Eye Clinic, Birmingham, UK and Refractive Surgery Centre, Kiel, Germany. Methods The right eye of 75 patients with cataracts and 22 healthy participants were assessed using the two devices. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and keratometry (K) were undertaken with the Aladdin and IOLMaster 500 in random order by an experienced practitioner. A second practitioner then obtained measurements for each participant using the Aladdin biometer in order to assess interobserver variability. Results No statistically significant differences ( p≥0.05) between the two biometers were found for average difference (AL)±95% CI=0.01±0.06 mm), ACD (0.00 ±0.11 mm) or mean K values (0.08±0.51 D). Furthermore, interobserver variability was very good for each parameter (weighted κ≥0.85). One patient's IOL powers could not be calculated with either biometer measurements, whereas a further three could not be analysed by the IOLMaster 500. The IOL power calculated from the valid measurements was not statistically significantly different between the biometers (p=0.842), with 91% of predictions within±0.25 D. Conclusions The Aladdin is a quick, easy-to-use biometer that produces valid and reproducible results that are comparable with those obtained with the IOLMaster 500.

Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer

Purpose To compare measurements taken using a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer (Lenstar 900), and to determine the clinical impacts of differences in their measurements on intraocular lens (IOL) power predictions. Methods Eighty eyes of 80 patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery were examined with both biometers. The measurements made using each device were axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous depth (AQD), lens thickness (LT), mean keratometry (MK), white-to-white distance (WTW), and pupil diameter (PD). Holladay 2 and SRK/T formulas were used to calculate IOL power. Differences in measurement between the two biometers were determined using the paired t-test. Agreement was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland–Altman plots. Results Mean patient age was 76.3±6.8 years (range 59–89). Using the Lenstar, AL and PD could not be measured in 12.5 and 5.25% of eyes, respectively, while IOLMaster 700 took all measurements in all eyes. The variables CCT, AQD, LT, and MK varied significantly between the two biometers. According to ICCs, correlation between measurements made with both devices was excellent except for WTW and PD. Using the SRK/T formula, IOL power prediction based on the data from the two devices were statistically different, but differences were not clinically significant. Conclusions No clinically relevant differences were detected between the biometers in terms of their measurements and IOL power predictions. Using the IOLMaster 700, it was easier to obtain biometric measurements in eyes with less transparent ocular media or longer AL.