Aim To compare intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods not requiring refraction data prior to myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) and radial keratotomy (RK).
Methods In post-LASIK eyes, the methods not requiring prior refraction data were Hagis-L; Shammas; Barrett True-K no-history; Wang-Koch-Maloney; ‘average’, ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ IOL power on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) IOL calculator. Double-K method and Barrett True-K no-history, ‘average’, ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ IOL power on ASCRS IOL calculator were evaluated in post-RK eyes. The predicted IOL power was calculated with each method using the manifest postoperative refraction. Arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction errors (PE) (implanted–predicted IOL powers), variances in arithmetic IOL PE and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 D of refractive PE were calculated.
Results Arithmetic or absolute IOL PE were not significantly different between the methods in post-LASIK and post-RK eyes. In post-LASIK eyes, ‘average’ showed the highest and ‘minimum’ showed the least variance, whereas ‘average’ and ‘minimum’ had highest percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ‘minimum’ had the highest percentage of eyes within ±1.0 D. In the post-RK eyes, ‘minimum’ had highest variance, and ‘average’ had the least variance and highest percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D and ±1.0 D.
Conclusion In post-LASIK and post-RK eyes, there are no significant differences in IOL PE between the methods not requiring prior refraction data. ‘Minimum’ showed least variance in PEs and more chances of eyes to be within ±1.0 D postoperatively in post-LASIK eyes. ‘Average’ had least variance and more chance of eyes within ±1.0 D in post-RK eyes.
- Diagnostic tests/Investigation
- Optics and Refraction
- Treatment Lasers
- Treatment Surgery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
↵A part of this project was presented at the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery annual congress in May 2019 at San Diego, USA.
Contributors PP, ViV, VaV, AAS: Data collection, analysis, final approval. ZA: Data analysis, manuscript drafting, final approval. SAV: Surgeries, data collection, analysis, final approval. MAN: Data analysis, manuscript drafting, critical revision and final approval.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests ViV, VaV, SAV: Research grants from Alcon Laboratories, USA. MAN: Research grants from Alcon Laboratories; European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery; Johnson & Johnson, USA; NuVision Biotherapies, UK; Rayner Intraocular lenses, UK. Lecture fees from Alcon Laboratories. Consultant to Hoya. Travel grant from Alcon Laboratories and Bausch & Lomb, USA.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availabilty statement Data availability not applicable as no data sets generated and/or analysed for this study.