Intraocular lens power calculation formula accuracy: Comparison of 12 formulas for a trifocal hydrophilic intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 12 intraocular lens (IOL) power formulas; Barrett Universal II, Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO), Haigis, Hill-Radial Basis Function (RBF), Hoffer Q, Holladay I, Kane, Ladas Super Formula, Olsen Lenstar, Panacea, Pearl-DGS, Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T). In addition, an analysis of the efficacy as a function of the axial length was performed. METHODS: About 171 from 93 patients: 68 male eyes and 103 female eyes. Twelve IOL power formula calculations were studied with one IOL platform (trifocal hydrophilic IOL, FineVision Micro F), one biometer (Lenstar LS 900), one topographer (CSO Sirius Topographer), one surgeon, and one optometrist. Optimization were determined to be zeroed mean refractive prediction error. Mean error (ME), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and refractive accuracy within ±1.00 D was calculated. Axial length was split in short and medium eyes. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy eyes were included. Formulas were ranked by percentage within ±0.50 diopters and MAE (D). Among all eyes, Olsen 86.55% (0.273 D) and Barrett Universal II 86.55% (0.285D). For short eyes (<22.5 mm), Olsen 90.70% (0.273 D) and Kane 90.70% (0.225 D). For medium eyes, Barrett 89.34% (0.237 D) and Pearl 86.89% (0.263 D). CONCLUSION: Olsen and Barrett formula obtained excellent accuracy for overall eyes. Kane and Olsen formula obtained the best results in short eyes. For medium axial length Barrett formula achieved the best accuracy results.

Laser refractive surgery in corneal dystrophies.

Twenty-eight case reports and case series published between 2000 and 2019 concerning laser refractive surgery in patients with corneal dystrophies, resulting in 173 eyes from 94 patients, were included in this systematic review. Best results were achieved in posterior corneal polymorphous and Cogan dystrophy. Unfavorable results were found in Avellino dystrophy and Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). Photorefractive keratectomy was not indicated in Meesmann and Avellino dystrophy. Laser in situ keratomileusis was indicated in posterior polymorphous corneal dystrophy but not in FECD, Avellino, or Cogan dystrophy. Small-incision lenticule extraction and other dystrophies such as lattice, fleck, Lisch, or François did not achieve enough scientific evidence to report any recommendation.

Could the percent tissue altered (PTA) index be considered as a unique factor in ectasia risk assessment?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, predictability and stability of the percent tissue altered (PTA) formula in post-LASIK (laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis) ectasia risk assessment. METHODS: One hundred and ninety-three eyes from 104 patients with low to moderate myopia that underwent femtosecond LASIK were included in this retrospective, observational and longitudinal study. Seventy-eight eyes were classified in the higher-PTA (> 40%) group and 115 eyes in the lower-PTA (< 40%) group. Spherical manifest refraction, cylinder manifest refraction, logMAR and Snellen previous corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), anterior face Baiocchi Calossi Versaci index (BCVf) and posterior face (BCVb), central corneal thickness (CCT), estimated residual stromal bed (RSB), spherical aberration (SA) and root mean square (RMS) were reported. All patients were followed up for 4 years. RESULTS: In the higher-PTA group, 97% of eyes reported UDVA 20/20 or better, and in the lower-PTA group, all eyes achieved 20/20 or better. No group reported decreased visual acuity. The higher-PTA group obtained 55% of eyes within ± 0.50 D and 90% within ± 1.00 D; and the lower-PTA group obtained 63% of eyes within ± 0.50 D and 90% within ± 1.00 D. Both groups showed a refraction correction of 0.50 D or more in 36% and 31% of eyes, in the higher-PTA and the lower-PTA groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Percent tissue altered index should not be considered as a unique variable in post-LASIK ectasia risk assessment. Ectasia susceptibility screening should integrate tomography and biomechanical variables in order to help us to decide any refractive treatment choice and increasing refractive surgery safety.