Refractive Astigmatism Outcomes of Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Arcuate Keratotomies Combined with Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Cataract Surgery: Two-Year Results.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and stability of refractive astigmatism reduction after penetrating femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy performed at the time of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery. METHODS: Non-randomized retrospective data analysis of all patients that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery with femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy over a 4-year period with a non-toric monofocal intraocular lens (2017-2021) at a tertiary care academic center. Postoperative visual acuity, manifest refraction, and predicted residual refractive error were also recorded at 1 month, 3-6 months, 12-18 months, and 2 years postoperatively. Preoperative keratometric astigmatism was compared to postoperative refractive astigmatism using vector calculations and the ASCRS double-angle plot tool. RESULTS: This study comprised 266 eyes (179 patients) that met inclusion criteria. The mean preoperative keratometric astigmatism magnitude was 0.99 ± 0.53 D. At 1 month, 3-6 months, 12-18 months, and 2 years postoperatively, the mean refractive cylinder was 0.49 ± 0.45 D, 0.49 ± 0.45 D, 0.55 ± 0.54 D, and 0.52 ± 0.46 D, respectively. Horizontal against-the-rule astigmatism showed a higher tendency toward undercorrection than vertical with-the-rule astigmatism, which had a slightly higher tendency toward overcorrection. With-the-rule astigmatism had smaller difference vectors between target-induced astigmatism and surgically induced astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: Femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate keratotomy performed at the time of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery was an effective option for correcting low-to-moderate corneal astigmatism for up to 2 years.

Leaving trusted paths: Estimating corneal keratometric index in cataract surgery eyes with zero-power implants.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the corneal keratometric index in the eyes of cataract surgery patients who received zero-power intraocular lenses (IOLs). METHODOLOGY: This retrospective study analyzed postoperative equivalent spherical refraction and axial length, mean anterior curvature radius and aqueous humor refractive index to calculate the theoretical corneal keratometric index value (nk). Data was collected from 2 centers located in France and Germany. RESULTS: Thirty-six eyes were analyzed. The results revealed a mean corneal keratometric index of 1.329 ± 0.005 for traditional axial length (AL) and 1.331 ± 0.005 for Cooke modified axial length (CMAL). Results ranged from minimum values of 1.318/1.320 to maximum values of 1.340/1.340. CONCLUSION: The corneal keratometric index is a crucial parameter for ophthalmic procedures and calculations, particularly for IOL power calculation. Notably, the estimated corneal keratometric index value of 1.329/1.331 in this study is lower than the commonly used 1.3375 index. These findings align with recent research demonstrating that the theoretical corneal keratometric index should be approximately 1.329 using traditional AL and 1.331 using CMAL, based on the ratio between the mean anterior and posterior corneal curvature radii (1.22).

Comparison of Pre- and Post-DMEK Keratometry and Total Keratometry Values for IOL Power Calculations in Eyes Undergoing Triple DMEK.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prediction accuracy of pre- and post-DMEK keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) values for IOL power calculations in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) eyes undergoing DMEK with cataract surgery (triple DMEK). METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional multicenter study of 55 FECD eyes (44 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2022 between two centers in USA and Europe. Swept-source optical coherence tomography biometry (IOLMaster 700) was used for pre- and post-DMEK measurements. K and TK values were used for power calculations with ten formulae (Barrett Universal II (BUII), Castrop, Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer QST, Holladay I, Kane, and SRK/T). Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), standard deviation, and percentage of eyes within ±0.50/±1.00 diopters (D) were calculated. Studied formulae were additionally adjusted using a method published previously (IOLup1D Method), which increases the IOL power by 1D. While both eyes from the same patient were considered for descriptive statistics, we restricted to one eye per individual (44 eyes for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: MAEs for all formulae were lower for post-DMEK K and TK than pre-DMEK K and TK by an average of 0.24 and 0.47 D, respectively. The lowest MAE was 0.49 D for Kane using post-DMEK TK, and the highest MAE was 1.05 D for BUII using pre-DMEK TK. Most IOLup1D formulae had lower MAEs than pre-DMEK K and TK formulae. CONCLUSIONS: The IOLup1D Method should be used instead of pre-DMEK K and TK values for triple DMEK in FECD eyes. Using post-DMEK TK values for cataract surgery after DMEK provides better refractive accuracy than any of the three studied methods used for triple DMEK procedures.

The Influence of Lens Position, Vault Prediction, and Posterior Cornea on Phakic Posterior Chamber Intraocular Lens Power.

BACKGROUND: Achieving precise refractive outcomes in phakic posterior chamber intraocular lens (pIOL) implantation is crucial for patient satisfaction. This study investigates factors affecting pIOL power calculations, focusing on myopic eyes, and evaluates the potential benefits of advanced predictive models. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, algorithm improvement study. METHODS: Various variations with different effective lens position (ELP) algorithms were analyzed. The algorithms included a fixed constant model, and a multiple linear regression model and were tested with and without incorporation of the posterior corneal curvature (Rcp). Furthermore, the impact of inserting the postoperative vault, the space between the pIOL and the crystalline lens, into the ELP algorithm was examined, and a simple vault prediction model was assessed. RESULTS: Integrating Rcp and the measured vault into pIOL calculations did not significantly improve accuracy. Transitioning from constant model approaches to ELP concepts based on linear regression models significantly improved pIOL power calculations. Linear regression models outperformed constant models, enhancing refractive outcomes for both ICL and IPCL pIOL platforms. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the utility of implementing ELP concepts based on linear regression models into pIOL power calculation. Linear regression based ELP models offered substantial advantages for achieving desired refractive outcomes, especially in lower to medium power pIOL models. For pIOL power calculations in both pIOL platforms we tested with preoperative measurements from a Scheimpflug device, we found improved results with the LION 1ICL formula and LION 1IPCL formula. Further research is needed to explore the applicability of these findings to a broader range of pIOL designs and measurement devices.

Differences Between Keratometry and Total Keratometry Measurements in a Large Dataset Obtained With a Modern Swept Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the concept of total keratometry (TK) by analyzing extensive international datasets representing diverse ethnic backgrounds. The primary objective was to quantify the disparities between traditional keratometry (K) and TK values in normal eyes and assess their impact on intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using various formulas. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter intra-instrument reliability analysis. METHODS: The study involved the analysis of biometry data collected from ten international centers across Europe, the United States, and Asia. Corneal power was expressed as equivalent power and astigmatic vector components for both K and TK values. The study assessed the influence of these differences on IOL power calculations using different formulas. The results were analyzed and plotted using Bland-Altman and double angle plots. RESULTS: The study encompassed a total of 116,982 measurements from 57,862 right eyes and 59,120 left eyes. The analysis revealed a high level of agreement between K and TK values, with 93.98% of eyes exhibiting an absolute difference of 0.25 D or less. Astigmatism vector differences exceeding 0.25 D and 0.50 D were observed in 39.43% and 1.08% of eyes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study underscores the similarity between mean K and TK values in healthy eyes, with rare clinical implications for IOL power calculation. Noteworthy differences were observed in astigmatism values between K and TK. Future investigations should delve into the practicality of TK values for astigmatism correction and their implications for surgical outcomes.

Unilateral intraindividual comparison and bilateral performance of a monofocal spherical and diffractive extended depth of field intraocular lens mix-and-match approach.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the intraindividual visual performance of a spherical and extended depth of field (EDOF) IOL used in a mix-and-match approach. METHODS: Single centre (tertiary care centre), retrospective consecutive case series. Included patients had uneventful cataract surgery with implantation of a spherical monofocal IOL (CT Spheris 204) in the dominant eye and a diffractive EDOF IOL (AT LARA 829) in the non-dominant eye. Monocular and binocular defocus curves and visual acuity at various distances were assessed. In addition, binocular reading speed, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction using QOV, Catquest 9SF, and glare/halo questionnaires are reported. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients (58 eyes) were included. We observed significant intra-individual differences for monocular DCIVA, DCNVA, UIVA, and UNVA. There were no differences in monocular BCDVA or UDVA. The monocular defocus curves for the two IOLs significantly differed at defocus steps between -1.0 and -3.5 D. 93.10% of patients reported they would opt for the same combination of IOLs. CONCLUSION: Excellent uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity was demonstrated in both groups. The mix-and-match approach described in this study yielded good intermediate vision and improved near vision with high-patient satisfaction.

Influence and predictive value of optional parameters in new-generation intraocular lens formulas.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of various variations of new-generation multivariate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using the Barrett Universal II, Castrop, Emmetropia Verifying Optical 2.0, Hill-Radial Basis Function 3.0, Kane, and PEARL-DGS formulas with and without optional biometric parameters. SETTING: Tertiary care academic medical center. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. Single-center study. METHODS: Inclusion of patients after uneventful cataract surgery implanting AU00T0 IOLs. Data from one eye per patient were randomly included. Eyes with a corrected distance visual acuity worse than 0.1 logMAR were excluded. IOLCON-optimized constants were used for all formulas other than the Castrop formula. The outcome measures were prediction error (PE) and absolute prediction error (absPE) for the 6 study formulas. RESULTS: 251 eyes from 251 patients were assessed. Excluding lens thickness led to statistically significant differences in absPE in several formulas. Leaving out horizontal corneal diameter did not impact absPE in several formulas. Differences in PE offset were observed between the various formula variations. CONCLUSIONS: When using multivariate formulas with an A-constant, including certain optional parameters is vital for optimal refractive results. Formula variations excluding certain biometric parameters need specifically optimized constants and do not perform similarly when using the constant of the respective formula using all parameters.

Standard vs total keratometry for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery combined with DMEK.

PURPOSE: To compare the prediction accuracy of standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes undergoing combined cataract surgery and Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (triple DMEK). SETTING: Tertiary care academic referral center. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Review of 83 eyes (63 patients) that underwent triple DMEK between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700). 63 eyes were used for statistical analysis. Mean error, mean absolute error (MAE), SD, median absolute error, maximum absolute error, root mean squared prediction error, and the percentage of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.50 diopters (D) and ±1.00 D were calculated for 9 multivariate and third-generation formulas using K and TK values (Barrett Universal II, Yeo EVO 2.0, Cooke K6, Kane, Pearl-DGS, Haigis, Holladay 1, Hoffer Q, and SRK/T). Formulas were additionally tested by using the prediction for an IOL power 1 D below the IOL used (IOLup1D). RESULTS: For all formulas, MAE was lower for K than for TK by an average of 0.21 D. The lowest MAE value observed was 0.67 D for "adjusted" SRK/T using K, and the highest MAE values observed were 1.24 D and 1.24 D for nonadjusted Hoffer Q and Haigis using TK, respectively. Overall, lower MAE values were observed for multivariate formulas and SRK/T. CONCLUSIONS: In triple DMEK eyes, the prediction accuracy of K was higher than that of TK. The most accurate formulas were SRK/T and multivariate formulas using K with the IOLup1D adjustment.

Evaluation of phakic intraocular lens power calculation using the new Linz-Homburg-Castrop formula and comparison with four conventional methods.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) power calculation in a middle European patient cohort. SETTING: EyeLaser Clinic, Linz, Austria. DESIGN: Single-center single-surgeon retrospective consecutive case series. METHODS: Patients were included after uneventful pIOL surgery implanting 91 nontoric and toric Visian implantable collamer lens model V4c. Online Calculation and Ordering System (OCOS) software, JPhakic software, Olsen-Feingold formula, Holladay formula, and Linz-Homburg-Castrop (LHC) formula were compared. When possible, lens constants were optimized for the patient cohort. Data of single eye per patient were included. Outcome measures were mean absolute prediction error, median absolute prediction error, mean prediction error with SD, and median prediction error, as well as the percentage of eyes with an absolute prediction error within limits of 0.25 diopters (D), 0.5 D, 0.75 D, and 1.0 D. RESULTS: 91 eyes of 91 patients were assessed. After application of the Cochran Q test, the Olsen-Feingold formula achieved a significantly lower percentage of eyes within an absolute prediction error of 1.0 D than all other methods. CONCLUSIONS: In the patient cohort, OCOS software, JPhakic software, and Holladay and LHC formulas showed equal results and can be cross-checked. The LHC formula was not published before. A ready-to-use Excel sheet is available as an addendum.

The 10,000 Eyes Study: Analysis of Keratometry, Abulafia-Koch regression transformation, and Biometric Eye Parameters Obtained With Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography.

PURPOSE: To analyze Abulafia-Koch regression (AKRT), anterior and posterior astigmatism (K and TK), and evaluate biometry data in a large population. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: This multicenter (2 tertiary care centers) study analyzed datasets acquired between 2017 and 2020. Axial length (AL), corneal front and back radii (including meridians for K and TK conversion), horizontal corneal diameter, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and central corneal thickness were measured using telecentric keratometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometry (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec AG). Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) and AKRT were calculated. Difference vectors between K and TK astigmatism and between AKRT and TK astigmatism were compared. RESULTS: A total of 10,300 eyes from 6388 patients were assessed. Difference vectors for K and TK were significantly smaller than for AKRT and TK. K measurement showed a configuration of 51.49% of with-the-rule astigmatism and 30.51% against-the-rule astigmatism, TK measurement showed a configuration of 41.60% of with-the-rule astigmatism and 40.21% against-the-rule astigmatism. Mean total astigmatism was -0.94 ± 0.74 dpt. Mean values for AL and CMAL were 23.70 ± 1.39 mm and 23.70 ± 1.34 mm, respectively. Anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, horizontal corneal diameter, AL, and age were all correlated with each other. CONCLUSION: Astigmatism analysis showed less difference between K and TK than between AKRT and TK. There were significantly fewer eyes with with-the-rule astigmatism and more eyes with against-the-rule astigmatism configuration in TK-derived than in K-derived keratometry. The study provides data on gender and generational differences in biometry. Significant intersexual differences in AL and CMAL were observed, with CMAL providing lower standard deviation compared with AL.

Project Hyperopic Power Prediction II: The Effects of Second Eye Refinement Methods on Prediction Error in Hyperopic Eyes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the potential accuracy of different second eye refinement methods in a patient cohort with short axial eye length to assess the performance of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation schemes in high hyperopes. METHODS: The study design was a single-center, single-surgeon retrospective consecutive case series. The setting of the study was in Augen- und Laserklinik, Castrop-Rauxel, Germany. Patients were assessed after uneventful bilateral cataract surgery implanting either spherical (SA60AT) or aspheric (ZCB00) IOLs. Inclusion criteria were an axial eye length of ≤21.5 mm and/or emmetropizing IOL power of >28.5 dpt. Outcome measures were the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), median absolute prediction error, mean prediction error with standard deviation, median prediction error, and the percentage of eyes with an absolute prediction error (absPE) within 0.25 dpt, 0.5 dpt, 0.75 dpt, or 1.0 dpt. Second eye refinement was performed using the first eye prediction error, either with a correction coefficient of 0.50 (SER1), or an individual coefficient optimized for MAE. RESULTS: A total of 55 patients were assessed. A statistically significant reduction in the absPE after the application of SER1 was observed in 9 of 13 formulae. The SER1 refined Hoffer Q, refined Holladay I, refined Holladay II, refined Kane, refined Okulix, and refined PEARL-DGS provided a smaller absPE than other methods. CONCLUSION: In this patient cohort with a short axial eye length, the second eye refinement led to a lower MAE in almost all formulae. The use of refinement in Kane, Okulix, PEARL-DGS, and Castrop formulae exhibited the lowest MAE.

Lasting Effects: Seven Year Results of the Castrop Nomogram for Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Paired Corneal Arcuate Incisions.

PURPOSE: Long-term results of arcuate incisions are rarely reported. This is unfortunate as long-term stability of astigmatic correction is of great interest to surgeons performing astigmatic correction. This study investigates the 7 year stability of results after application of femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate incisions with the Castrop nomogram. METHODS: Prospective interventional case series at the Augen- und Laserklinik, Castrop-Rauxel, Germany. Single site, single surgeon study. Seven year results of cataract patients with low to moderate corneal astigmatism receiving femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate incisions using a TechnolasVictus SW 2.7 (Bausch & Lomb Inc, Dornach, Germany) were assessed and compared to 1 year results. Outcome evaluation was based on astigmatic vector analysis, manifest refraction, and visual acuity. RESULTS: The study analyzed 19 eyes of 19 patients 7 years after surgery. Ocular residual astigmatism changed from -0.26 to -0.39 D. Preoperative corneal astigmatism was -1.51 D. Correction Index changed from 1.0 to 1.16. The magnitude of difference vector changed from 0.26 to 0.39 D. The index of success changed from 0.20 to 0.29. Spherical equivalent remained stable. A slight tendency to change toward astigmatic overcorrection was mainly observed for patients with preoperative with the rule astigmatism, but not with patients with against the rule astigmatism. CONCLUSIONS: The Castrop nomogram showed stable results 7 years after surgery. Similar to toric IOL surgery, it is advisable to be less aggressive when correcting with the rule astigmatism, to avoid overcorrection over a long period.

Precision and refractive predictability of a new nomogram for femtosecond laser-assisted corneal arcuate incisions.

PURPOSE: Validating a new nomogram for low to moderate astigmatism (0.75 D to 2.5 D) correction with epithelium- and Bowman-penetrating femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate incisions. METHODOLOGY: Prospective, interventional case series at the Augen- und Laserklinik, Castrop-Rauxel, Germany. Cataract patients with low to moderate corneal astigmatism were treated with femtosecond laser-assisted arcuate incisions. Patients with previous refractive corneal treatment were excluded. Outcome assessment was based on manifest refraction, astigmatic vector analysis and visual acuity. RESULTS: The study analysed 43 eyes of 33 patients after three months and 35 eyes of 27 patients after 12 months. After 12 months, 100% of all eyes treated had ≤1.0 D and 97% ≤0.5 D of subjective residual astigmatism. Mean residual astigmatism was 0.27 D. 90% of all eyes were within one line of difference between UDVA and CDVA. SEQ Mean Absolute Error was 0.26 D and SEQ. Mean error was -0.08 ± 0.32 D. CI was 0.98 ± 0.2 D, and Index of Success, 0.20 ± 0.18 D. CONCLUSION: The Castrop nomogram showed results that are comparable to or better than results presented in the literature for existing nomograms. Our results for astigmatic reduction are comparable to published results for TIOL implantation. It seems to be a predictable and safe measure to reduce manifest astigmatism.