• COVID-19
  • Biosimilars
  • Cataract Therapeutics
  • DME
  • Gene Therapy
  • Workplace
  • Ptosis
  • Optic Relief
  • Imaging
  • Geographic Atrophy
  • AMD
  • Presbyopia
  • Ocular Surface Disease
  • Practice Management
  • Pediatrics
  • Surgery
  • Therapeutics
  • Optometry
  • Retina
  • Cataract
  • Pharmacy
  • IOL
  • Dry Eye
  • Understanding Antibiotic Resistance
  • Refractive
  • Cornea
  • Glaucoma
  • OCT
  • Ocular Allergy
  • Clinical Diagnosis
  • Technology

Investigators challenge IOL power calculations

Digital EditionOphthalmology Times: October 15, 2020
Volume 45
Issue 17

Study finds imaging-based formulas are less accurate in post-myopic LASIK eyes.

This article was reviewed by Neeraj S. Chawla, BS

Novel high-resolution imaging-based IOL power calculation formulas that take into account total corneal power measurements and the differential effect of corneal laser refractive surgery on anterior and posterior corneal curvature aim to improve refractive accuracy in eyes with a history of LASI or PRK.

However, findings from a retrospective clinical cohort study of 170 postmyopic LASIK eyes showed that, when comparing IOL power predictive accuracy, the Pentacam Scheimpflug camera-based Potvin-Hill and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT)–based True-K formulas did not necessarily outperform other select formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) IOL calculator.

Related: Getting it right: There is no magic bullet for IOL calculations

The research was conducted by Neeraj S. Chawla, BS, a medical student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Navaneet S. Borisuth, MD, PhD, who is in private practice at Virdi Eye Clinic, with 3 locations in Illinois and Iowa. Chawla presented the findings at the 2020 ASCRS virtual annual meeting.

“Potential limitations of our study included a lack of complete historical LASIK data, as well as sample size,” he said. “Therefore, we believe future studies should continue to explore the Scheimpflug camera-based and OCT-based formulas using larger patient populations [and] tighter experimental conditions, as well as various subgroup analyses.”

Borisuth noted that further investigation may determine the degree and specific conditions in which these imaging-based formulas will improve patient outcomes from cataract surgery.

“The Potvin-Hill and OCT True-K formulas confer a theoretical advantage based on their advanced imaging techniques that incorporate total corneal power,” he said. “For example, the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera may be specifically useful when planning for astigmatic correction in postmyopic LASIK eyes.”

Patients included in the study were operated on by Borisuth, with consideration of post-myopic LASIK eyes receiving monofocal, toric, or extended-depth of focus IOL implants. Eyes with concurrent corneal or retinal pathology were excluded from the study.

Related: Aspheric, aberration-free IOL leverages technology for performance

Postoperatively, 81.6% and 91.1% of eyes fell within ± 0.5 D and ± 1.0 D of target predicted refraction, respectively, therefore indicating “generally favorable” surgical outcomes.

This bar graph depicts absolute predictive errors for various IOL formulas. (Chart courtesy of Neeraj S. Chawla, BS)

This bar graph depicts absolute predictive errors for various IOL formulas. (Chart courtesy of Neeraj S. Chawla, BS)

IOL power formula predictive accuracy was determined using postoperative refractive data to back-calculate optimum IOL powers and absolute prediction errors.

The formulas analyzed included the Scheimpflug camera-based Potvin-Hill and spectral-domain OCT-based True-K, as well as other conventionally available formulas of the ASCRS IOL calculator. These included the Barrett True-K, Barrett True-K no-history, Masket, Modified Masket, Shammas, Haigis-L, and ASCRS Average formulas.

Mean absolute prediction error ranged from a low of 0.40 ± 0.33 D for the Barrett True-K formula to a high of 0.67 ± 0.51 D for the Shammas formula.

Statistical analyses revealed that the Barrett True-K, ASCRS Average, and Masket formulas were significantly more accurate than the OCT True-K and Shammas formulas only. No other statistically significant differences were derived.

Related: Haigis-TK power calculation formula provides best error prediction after LASIK

Additional subanalyses assessed directional relationships between predictive error of the imaging-based formulas with axial length and optimum IOL power.

These analyses found that the accuracy of the Potvin-Hill formula improved with increasing axial length and decreasing optimum IOL power, whereas the OCT True-K formula was most accurate for midrange axial length and midrange optimum IOL power.

“The Potvin-Hill formula typically underpredicted optimum IOL power, [whereas] the OCT-based formula did not show directionality,” Chawla said.

Read more by Cheryl Guttman Krader

Neeraj S. Chawla, BS

e: nchawla2@uic.edu
Chawla has no financial disclosures related to this content. He recently started his thirdyear medical rotations at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He graduated from Emory University in 2018 with a degree in neuroscience and behavioral biology.

Navaneet S. Borisuth, MD, PhD

e: nborisuth@gmail.com
Borisuth has no financial disclosures related to this content. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the American Glaucoma Society, and the Society of Heed Fellows.

Related Videos
Eye stroke: Mount Sinai program stresses awareness and emergent care for sudden vision loss
What the re:Vive 2.0 platform may mean for the future of vision diagnostics
Deep learning analysis detects diabetic retinopathy on ultra-widefield scanning laser ophthalmoscope images
Exploring ancillary testing orders by retinal specialists according to the IRIS registry
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.