5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Calculation of the Real Corneal Refractive Power after Photorefractive Keratectomy Using Pentacam, When Only the Preoperative Refractive Error is Known

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          To check if a regression formula, IOLMaster-derived, to calculate the real corneal power after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), can give reliable results utilizing the Pentacam.

          Methods

          Pre- and postoperative IOLMaster, Km, and Pentacam K readings were measured. Patients who had myopic PRK were divided into two groups: the first group (108 eyes) was utilized to check which of the preop Pentacam K readings (P-Kpre) better fitted with the preop IOLMaster measurements; in the second group (120 eyes), the real K (Kr), obtained adding the effective treatment to the P-Kpre, were compared with the K readings calculated with the IOLMaster-derived formula (Kc). Moreover, an attempt to find a different formula utilizing the P-Kpre was made.

          Results

          In group 1, the best correlation was found between IOLMaster Km and Pentacam equivalent K readings (r2 0.9519). In group 2, the comparison between Kr and Pentacam postop Km showed 69 eyes (57%) with differences >0.5 D and 38 eyes (31%) with differences >1 D, ( P < 0.001). The comparison between Kr and Kc showed 55 eyes (45%) with differences >0.5 D and 22 eyes (18%) with differences >1 D, ( P < 0.001). Moreover, a regression formula K = EKR − [ETcp + (0.8114 ∗ ETcp − 0.2031)] was obtained in order to calculate the K readings to be used with the Pentacam in the IOL power calculation in case the effective treatment is known.

          Conclusions

          K calculated with the new formula could be used in patients that underwent refractive corneal surgery in case a Pentacam device is used, pending further studies conducted in clinical practice to establish its accuracy and effectiveness. This study further proves that data obtained from different machines cannot be used interchangeably.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula.

          To describe the Haigis-L formula for the calculation of intraocular lenses (IOLs) after refractive laser surgery for myopia based on current biometry and keratometry and present clinical results. University Eye Hospital, Wuerzburg, Germany, and various clinics and private practices. The basic concepts of the new algorithm were described and summarized. The Haigis formula was analyzed with respect to its usability for eyes after laser surgery for myopia and modified accordingly. Correction curves for IOLMaster keratometry were derived from previous studies. The new formula was checked using the postoperative results of 187 cataract procedures in which 32 IOL types were implanted by 57 surgeons. Input data were current IOLMaster biometry as follows: axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and keratometry (corneal radii) measurements. Before IOL surgery, the mean spherical equivalent was -7.60 diopters (D)+/-3.90 (SD) (range -20.00 to -1.25 D); the mean AL, 27.02+/-2.01 mm (range 23.09 to 35.32 mm); the mean ACD, 3.52 +/- 0.36 mm (range 2.43 to 4.39 mm); and the mean of the measured corneal radii, 8.70+/-0.60 mm (range 7.28 to 10.96 mm). The mean arithmetic refractive prediction error was -0.04+/-0.70 D (range -2.30 to +2.40 D) and the median absolute error, 0.37 D (range +0.01 to +2.40 D). The percentages of correct refraction predictions within +/-2.00, +/-1.00, and +/-0.50 D were 98.4%, 84.0%, and 61.0%, respectively. The new formula would produce promising results in eyes without refractive history. Its refractive predictability fulfills the current criteria for normal eyes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intraocular lens power calculation after corneal refractive surgery: double-K method.

            To determine the accuracy of a method of calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power after corneal refractive surgery. Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital de Gipuzkoa, San Sebastián, Spain. The SRK/T formula was modified to use the pre refractive surgery K-value (Kpre) for the effective lens position (ELP) calculation and the post refractive surgery K-value (Kpost) for IOL power calculation by the vergence formula. The Kpre value was obtained by keratometry or topography and the Kpost, by the clinical history method. The formula was assessed in 9 cases of cataract surgery after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in which all relevant data were available. Refractive results of the standard SRK/T and the double-K SRK/T were compared statistically. The mean IOL power for emmetropia and the achieved refraction (mean spherical equivalent [SE]), respectively, were +17.85 diopters (D) +/- 3.43 (SD) and +1.82 +/- 0.73 with the standard SRK/T and +20.25 +/- 3.55 D and +0.13 +/- 0.62 D with the double-K SRK/T. No case in the standard SRK/T group and 6 cases (66.66%) in the double-K group achieved a +/-0.5 D SE. Double-K modification of the SRK/T formula improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation after LASIK and PRK.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Underestimation of intraocular lens power for cataract surgery after myopic photorefractive keratectomy.

              To assess the validity of corneal power measurement and standard intraocular lens power (IOLP) calculation after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). Nonrandomized, prospective, cross-sectional, clinical study. A total of 31 eyes of 21 females and 10 males with a mean age at the time of surgery of 32.3 +/- 6.6 years (range, 24.4-49.5 years). Subjective refractometry, standard keratometry, TMS-1 corneal topography analysis, and pachymetry were performed before and 15.8 +/- 10.4 months after PRK for myopia (n = 24, -1 .5 to -8.0 diopters [D], mean -5.4 +/- 1.9 D) or myopic astigmatism (n = 7, sphere -2.0 to -7.5 D, mean -4.4 +/- 1.9 D; cylinder -1.0 to -3.0 D, mean -1.9 +/- 0.7 D). The IOLP calculations were done using two different formulas (SRK/T and HAIGIS). Keratometric power (K) and topographic simulated keratometric power (TOPO) as measured (Kmeas, TOPOmeas) and as calculated according to the change of power of the anterior corneal surface or according to the spherical equivalent change after PRK (Kcalc, TOPOcalc), IOLP for emmetropia, and postoperative ametropia for calculated corneal powers were assessed in a model. After PRK, mean Kmeas and TOPOmeas were significantly greater (0.4-1.4 D, maximum 3.3 D) than mean KRcalc and TOPOcalc (P 1 D) than IOLP values using topographic readings (P < 0.0001). The theoretically induced mean refractive error after cataract surgery ranged from +0.4 to +1.4 (maximum, +3.1) D. Corneal power overestimation and IOLP underestimation correlated significantly with the spherical equivalent change after PRK (P = 0.001) and the intended ablation depth during PRK (P = 0.004). To avoid underestimation of IOLP and hyperopia after cataract surgery following PRK, measured corneal power values must be corrected. The calculation method using spherical equivalent change of refraction at the corneal plane seems to be the most appropriate method. In comparison with this method, direct power measurements underestimate corneal flattening after PRK by 24% on average. Use of conventional topography analysis seems to increase the risk of error. However, because this study is retrospective and theoretical, there is still a need for a large prospective investigation to validate the authors' findings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Ophthalmol
                J Ophthalmol
                JOPH
                Journal of Ophthalmology
                Hindawi
                2090-004X
                2090-0058
                2020
                1 April 2020
                : 2020
                : 1916369
                Affiliations
                1Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno, Salerno, Italy
                2Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Duesseldorf, Duesseldorf, Germany
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Alessandro Meduri

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4566-0064
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2366-6556
                Article
                10.1155/2020/1916369
                7152949
                ae918de8-28c2-4cc9-a9c7-af0b5262c54c
                Copyright © 2020 Maddalena De Bernardo et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 12 June 2019
                : 10 February 2020
                : 17 February 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Università degli Studi di Salerno
                Categories
                Research Article

                Ophthalmology & Optometry
                Ophthalmology & Optometry

                Comments

                Comment on this article