Mª Victoria de Rojas Silva, Adrián Tobío Ruibal, Jorge Suanzes Hernández, Hugo Darriba Folgar
{"title":"Assessing the predictability of five intraocular lens calculation methods in eyes with prior myopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction.","authors":"Mª Victoria de Rojas Silva, Adrián Tobío Ruibal, Jorge Suanzes Hernández, Hugo Darriba Folgar","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06661-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare the predictability of five methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with prior keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) for the treatment of myopia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective case study included 100 eyes of 52 patients who underwent myopia and myopia with astigmatism treatment with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative measurements of optical biometry and corneal tomography were obtained. The spherical equivalent of the refractive change induced by surgery was converted to the corneal plane (SMILE-dif). A physically well-defined method was developed in which the same IOL model was implanted before and after SMILE. IOL power was calculated using ray-tracing (RT-Sirius), and several IOL power calculation formulas (Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II Formula, Hoffer QST) before surgery. After surgery, IOL power was calculated with RT-Sirius, Kane using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm by ray tracing, EVO 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK, Barrett True K and Hoffer QST Post Myopic LASIK/PRK after surgery. The difference between the refractive error induced by the IOL before and after SMILE in the corneal plane (IOL-dif) was compared with SMILE-dif. The predicted error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-dif and IOL-dif.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PE obtained was 0.26 ± 0.55 diopters (D), 0.10 ± 0.45 D, 0.40 ± 0.37 D, -0.03 ± 0.36 D, 0.02 ± 0.51 D, with RT-Sirius, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett True K, and Hoffer QST respectively. PE was not statistically significantly different between Barrett True K and Hoffer QST, with differences being more homogeneous with Barrett, (variance σ<sup>2</sup> = 0,13). The absolute EP obtained with Barrett True K achieved 84% of cases within ± 0.5 D, followed by Kane (72%), Hoffer QST (65%), EVO (61%) and RT-Sirius (59%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for the correction of myopia.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>What is known The literature regarding IOL power calculation after SMILE is sparse, and the methods used to estimate corneal power following LASIK/PRK may not be applicable to SMILE procedures. The most common approach to investigating the predictability of IOL calculation formulas involves a theoretical model encompassing the virtual implantation of an IOL. What is new The Hoffer QST formula, Kane formula using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm, EVO 2.0, and Sirius' Ray Tracing software had not been previously evaluated using this approach. The Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for myopia correction, outperforming Ray Tracing.</p>","PeriodicalId":12795,"journal":{"name":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":"873-881"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06661-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the predictability of five methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with prior keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) for the treatment of myopia.
Methods: A retrospective case study included 100 eyes of 52 patients who underwent myopia and myopia with astigmatism treatment with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative measurements of optical biometry and corneal tomography were obtained. The spherical equivalent of the refractive change induced by surgery was converted to the corneal plane (SMILE-dif). A physically well-defined method was developed in which the same IOL model was implanted before and after SMILE. IOL power was calculated using ray-tracing (RT-Sirius), and several IOL power calculation formulas (Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II Formula, Hoffer QST) before surgery. After surgery, IOL power was calculated with RT-Sirius, Kane using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm by ray tracing, EVO 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK, Barrett True K and Hoffer QST Post Myopic LASIK/PRK after surgery. The difference between the refractive error induced by the IOL before and after SMILE in the corneal plane (IOL-dif) was compared with SMILE-dif. The predicted error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-dif and IOL-dif.
Results: The PE obtained was 0.26 ± 0.55 diopters (D), 0.10 ± 0.45 D, 0.40 ± 0.37 D, -0.03 ± 0.36 D, 0.02 ± 0.51 D, with RT-Sirius, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett True K, and Hoffer QST respectively. PE was not statistically significantly different between Barrett True K and Hoffer QST, with differences being more homogeneous with Barrett, (variance σ2 = 0,13). The absolute EP obtained with Barrett True K achieved 84% of cases within ± 0.5 D, followed by Kane (72%), Hoffer QST (65%), EVO (61%) and RT-Sirius (59%).
Conclusions: Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for the correction of myopia.
Key messages: What is known The literature regarding IOL power calculation after SMILE is sparse, and the methods used to estimate corneal power following LASIK/PRK may not be applicable to SMILE procedures. The most common approach to investigating the predictability of IOL calculation formulas involves a theoretical model encompassing the virtual implantation of an IOL. What is new The Hoffer QST formula, Kane formula using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm, EVO 2.0, and Sirius' Ray Tracing software had not been previously evaluated using this approach. The Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for myopia correction, outperforming Ray Tracing.
期刊介绍：
Graefe''s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology is a distinguished international journal that presents original clinical reports and clini-cally relevant experimental studies. Founded in 1854 by Albrecht von Graefe to serve as a source of useful clinical information and a stimulus for discussion, the journal has published articles by leading ophthalmologists and vision research scientists for more than a century. With peer review by an international Editorial Board and prompt English-language publication, Graefe''s Archive provides rapid dissemination of clinical and clinically related experimental information.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
