Comparison of the Accuracy of Newer Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods in Eyes That Underwent Previous Phototherapeutic Keratectomy

Yukari Yagi-Yaguchi, Kazuno Negishi, Megumi Saiki, Hidemasa Torii, Kazuo Tsubota

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using ray tracing software in patients who had undergone phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK). METHODS: In this retrospective case series, 37 eyes of 22 patients (mean age: 69.4 years; range: 56 to 85 years) who underwent cataract surgery after PTK were reviewed. The prediction error, defined as the difference between the estimated postoperative spherical equivalent and the postoperative manifest refraction at the spectacle plane, was calculated using the following formulas: OKULIX (Tedics, Dortmund, Germany), PhacoOptics (IOL Innovations ApS, Aarhus, Denmark), Barrett True K No History (NH), and Camellin-Calossi. The PhacoOptics formula was used in three different ways: historical method (H), no history method (NH), and C-constant method (C). The median values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors among these six IOL calculation methods were compared. RESULTS: The median arithmetic errors (in diopters [D]) and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the absolute errors were as follows: OKULIX (0.33, range: -2.20 to 2.50, 30.6%), PhacoOptics (H) (-0.12, range: -3.28 to 4.85, 22.2%), PhacoOptics (NH) (-0.25, range: -2.08 to 1.70, 48.4%), PhacoOptics (C) (0.04, range: -1.40 to 2.18, 48.5%), Barrett True K (NH) (-0.35, range: -1.90 to 1.89, 48.6%), and Camellin-Calossi (-0.19, range: -1.78 to 1.47, 59.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The PhacoOptics, especially the C-constant method (C), and Camellin-Calossi formulas were good options for calculating IOL powers in eyes that underwent PTK. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):310-316.].

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)310-316
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995)
Volume35
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 May 1

Fingerprint

Intraocular Lenses
History
Denmark
Cataract
Germany
Software

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

@article{5ee5295cceb740d9afbcd2c26807e79c,
title = "Comparison of the Accuracy of Newer Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods in Eyes That Underwent Previous Phototherapeutic Keratectomy",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using ray tracing software in patients who had undergone phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK). METHODS: In this retrospective case series, 37 eyes of 22 patients (mean age: 69.4 years; range: 56 to 85 years) who underwent cataract surgery after PTK were reviewed. The prediction error, defined as the difference between the estimated postoperative spherical equivalent and the postoperative manifest refraction at the spectacle plane, was calculated using the following formulas: OKULIX (Tedics, Dortmund, Germany), PhacoOptics (IOL Innovations ApS, Aarhus, Denmark), Barrett True K No History (NH), and Camellin-Calossi. The PhacoOptics formula was used in three different ways: historical method (H), no history method (NH), and C-constant method (C). The median values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors among these six IOL calculation methods were compared. RESULTS: The median arithmetic errors (in diopters [D]) and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the absolute errors were as follows: OKULIX (0.33, range: -2.20 to 2.50, 30.6{\%}), PhacoOptics (H) (-0.12, range: -3.28 to 4.85, 22.2{\%}), PhacoOptics (NH) (-0.25, range: -2.08 to 1.70, 48.4{\%}), PhacoOptics (C) (0.04, range: -1.40 to 2.18, 48.5{\%}), Barrett True K (NH) (-0.35, range: -1.90 to 1.89, 48.6{\%}), and Camellin-Calossi (-0.19, range: -1.78 to 1.47, 59.5{\%}). CONCLUSIONS: The PhacoOptics, especially the C-constant method (C), and Camellin-Calossi formulas were good options for calculating IOL powers in eyes that underwent PTK. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):310-316.].",
author = "Yukari Yagi-Yaguchi and Kazuno Negishi and Megumi Saiki and Hidemasa Torii and Kazuo Tsubota",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3928/1081597X-20190410-01",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "310--316",
journal = "Journal of Refractive Surgery",
issn = "0883-0444",
publisher = "Slack Incorporated",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the Accuracy of Newer Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods in Eyes That Underwent Previous Phototherapeutic Keratectomy

AU - Yagi-Yaguchi, Yukari

AU - Negishi, Kazuno

AU - Saiki, Megumi

AU - Torii, Hidemasa

AU - Tsubota, Kazuo

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using ray tracing software in patients who had undergone phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK). METHODS: In this retrospective case series, 37 eyes of 22 patients (mean age: 69.4 years; range: 56 to 85 years) who underwent cataract surgery after PTK were reviewed. The prediction error, defined as the difference between the estimated postoperative spherical equivalent and the postoperative manifest refraction at the spectacle plane, was calculated using the following formulas: OKULIX (Tedics, Dortmund, Germany), PhacoOptics (IOL Innovations ApS, Aarhus, Denmark), Barrett True K No History (NH), and Camellin-Calossi. The PhacoOptics formula was used in three different ways: historical method (H), no history method (NH), and C-constant method (C). The median values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors among these six IOL calculation methods were compared. RESULTS: The median arithmetic errors (in diopters [D]) and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the absolute errors were as follows: OKULIX (0.33, range: -2.20 to 2.50, 30.6%), PhacoOptics (H) (-0.12, range: -3.28 to 4.85, 22.2%), PhacoOptics (NH) (-0.25, range: -2.08 to 1.70, 48.4%), PhacoOptics (C) (0.04, range: -1.40 to 2.18, 48.5%), Barrett True K (NH) (-0.35, range: -1.90 to 1.89, 48.6%), and Camellin-Calossi (-0.19, range: -1.78 to 1.47, 59.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The PhacoOptics, especially the C-constant method (C), and Camellin-Calossi formulas were good options for calculating IOL powers in eyes that underwent PTK. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):310-316.].

AB - PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using ray tracing software in patients who had undergone phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK). METHODS: In this retrospective case series, 37 eyes of 22 patients (mean age: 69.4 years; range: 56 to 85 years) who underwent cataract surgery after PTK were reviewed. The prediction error, defined as the difference between the estimated postoperative spherical equivalent and the postoperative manifest refraction at the spectacle plane, was calculated using the following formulas: OKULIX (Tedics, Dortmund, Germany), PhacoOptics (IOL Innovations ApS, Aarhus, Denmark), Barrett True K No History (NH), and Camellin-Calossi. The PhacoOptics formula was used in three different ways: historical method (H), no history method (NH), and C-constant method (C). The median values of the arithmetic and absolute prediction errors among these six IOL calculation methods were compared. RESULTS: The median arithmetic errors (in diopters [D]) and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D of the absolute errors were as follows: OKULIX (0.33, range: -2.20 to 2.50, 30.6%), PhacoOptics (H) (-0.12, range: -3.28 to 4.85, 22.2%), PhacoOptics (NH) (-0.25, range: -2.08 to 1.70, 48.4%), PhacoOptics (C) (0.04, range: -1.40 to 2.18, 48.5%), Barrett True K (NH) (-0.35, range: -1.90 to 1.89, 48.6%), and Camellin-Calossi (-0.19, range: -1.78 to 1.47, 59.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The PhacoOptics, especially the C-constant method (C), and Camellin-Calossi formulas were good options for calculating IOL powers in eyes that underwent PTK. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(5):310-316.].

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065677101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065677101&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3928/1081597X-20190410-01

DO - 10.3928/1081597X-20190410-01

M3 - Article

C2 - 31059580

AN - SCOPUS:85065677101

VL - 35

SP - 310

EP - 316

JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery

SN - 0883-0444

IS - 5

ER -