ASCRS calculator formula accuracy in multifocal intraocular lens implantation in hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery eyes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery calculator in calculating multifocal IOL power in eyes with previous hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, the Netherlands. METHODS: This study compared the accuracy of 3 formulas using historical refractive data (ie, Masket, modified Masket, and Barrett True-K) and 3 formulas using no previous refractive data (ie, Shammas, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K no-history). RESULTS: Sixty-four eyes were included. The variance of the prediction error of the various formulas was similar and ranged from 0.27 D2 to 0.33 D2 (P = .99). The modified Masket formula had a significantly higher median absolute prediction error than the Masket formula, Barrett True-K formula, and mean value of all formulas (P < .001). CONCLUSION: All formulas showed comparable accuracy in predicting IOL power in eyes after hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery except for the modified Masket formula, which performed less accurately than the Masket formula, Barrett True-K formula, and mean value of all formulas.

Evaluation of Different IOL Calculation Formulas of the ASCRS Calculator in Eyes After Corneal Refractive Laser Surgery for Myopia With Multifocal IOL Implantation.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of different intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive surgery IOL power calculator for the prediction of multifocal IOL power after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia. METHODS: An analysis and comparison were performed of the accuracy of three methods using surgically induced change in refraction (ie, Masket, Modified Masket, and Barrett True-K formulas) and three methods using no previous data (ie, Shammas, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K No History formulas). The average of all formulas was also analyzed and compared. RESULTS: Thirty-six eyes of 36 patients were included. All formulas, except for the Masket, Modified Masket, and Barrett True-K formulas, had myopic mean numerical errors that were significantly different from zero (P ⩽ .01). The median absolute error of the Shammas formula (0.52 diopters [D]) was significantly higher compared to all of the other formulas (P < .05), except for the Haigis-L formula (P = .09). Comparing the formulas using no previous data, the Barrett True-K No History formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.33 D, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The Shammas formula showed the least accuracy in predicting IOL power in eyes with multifocal IOL implantation after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia. In eyes with all available data, all formulas performed equally except for the Shammas formula, whereas in eyes lacking historical data, the Barrett True-K No History formula performed best. [J Refract Surg. 2019;35(1):54-59.].

Multifocal intraocular lens implantation after previous hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcomes in terms of the refraction and visual acuity of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in patients with previous hyperopic corneal refractive laser surgery. SETTING: Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, and Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: Results were analyzed 3 months after implantation of a multifocal IOL (Acrysof Restor SN6AD1) in patients after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for hyperopia. The primary outcome measures were uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and refraction. The secondary outcome measures were the number of laser enhancements and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) rates. RESULTS: Forty eyes of 40 patients were included. Sixteen eyes (40.0%) had lens extraction because of cataract, and 24 eyes (60.0%) had refractive lens exchange. The mean postoperative UDVA was 0.16 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) ± 0.18 (SD), and the mean postoperative CDVA was 0.01 ± 0.08 logMAR. The mean postoperative spherical equivalent was 0.04 ± 0.92 diopter (D). Twenty-five eyes (62.5%) were within ±0.50 D of emmetropia, and 35 eyes (87.5%) were within ±1.0 D of emmetropia. Nine eyes (22.5%) had a laser enhancement because of a residual refraction error. Eleven eyes (27.5%) had a neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy because of PCO. CONCLUSIONS: In general, multifocal IOL implantation after corneal refractive laser surgery for hyperopia resulted in good visual acuity and refraction. The magnitude of previous hyperopia did not influence the refractive predictability.

Multifocal intraocular lens implantation after previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia.

PURPOSE: To describe the refraction and visual acuity outcomes of multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in patients with previous corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia. SETTING: Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, and Retina Total Eye Care, Driebergen, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The 3-month results after implantation of a multifocal IOL (Acrysof Restor) in patients who had corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia were analyzed. The primary outcome measures were corrected distance visual acuity, uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), and refraction. The secondary outcome measures were number of laser enhancements, corneal irregularity, pre-laser magnitude of myopia, and posterior capsule opacification (PCO) rate. RESULTS: Seventy-seven eyes of 43 patients were included. Twenty-nine eyes had lens extraction because of cataract, and 48 eyes had a refractive lens exchange. The mean postoperative UDVA was 0.14 logarithm of minimum angle of resolution ± 0.22 (SD). The mean postoperative spherical equivalent was -0.38 ± 0.78 diopter (D). Fifty-seven percent of eyes were within ±0.50 D of emmetropia, and 86% were within ±1.0 D. Sixteen eyes (20.8%) had laser enhancement because of residual refraction. Fourteen eyes (18.2%) had a neodymium:YAG laser capsulotomy because of PCO. Eyes with pre-laser myopia greater than 6.0 D had a less predictable outcome than eyes with pre-laser myopia less than 6.0 D (P = .026). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IOL implantation after corneal refractive laser surgery for myopia resulted in good visual acuity and refraction. Results were less predictable with myopia greater than 6.0 D.

Autorefraction versus subjective refraction in a radially asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the automated refraction (AR) correlates with subjective manifest (MR) refraction in eyes implanted with radially asymmetric multifocal intraocular lens (IOLs). METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated 52 eyes (52 patients) implanted with a radially asymmetric multifocal IOL (LS-312 MF30, Oculentis, Germany). At 3 months postoperatively, the AR and MR values were compared to determine the correlation between the sphere (S), the spherical equivalent (SE) and the astigmatic components J0 and J45. RESULTS: The difference of mean spherical measurement was +0.98D ± 0.62, with the AR measuring more myopic. The difference of the mean spherical equivalent was +1.11D ± 0.57, again with AR being more myopic. Both these differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The astigmatic components showed less differences, with the mean difference of the J0 being -0.09D ± 0.43, and the J45 of +0.04D ± 0.47, which were both not statistically significant (p = 0.123 and p = 0.531, respectively). Correlation analysis of the refractive parameters showed r(2) = 0.067, r(2) = 0.078, r(2) = 0.018 and r(2) = 0.015, respectively, all of which point to a low correlation between the AR and the MR. CONCLUSION: Autorefraction shows poor correlation to manifest subjective refraction with these radially asymmetric multifocal IOLs. The autorefraction systematically underestimates the spherical and spherical equivalent power, while the correlation between the astigmatic components was also low. Autorefraction seems not a valid starting point for manifest subjective refraction with these types of lenses, unless a corrective factor of about +1 dioptre is used.

Indications for and outcomes of tertiary referrals in refractive surgery.

PURPOSE: To review the spectrum of disease, symptomatology, and management offered to patients referred for a second opinion after refractive surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was done on all patients referred from October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2011, to a tertiary eye clinic after refractive surgery of any kind (ie, corneal laser surgery, conductive keratoplasty, radial keratotomy, phakic implants, refractive lens exchanges, or any combination thereof). Data analysis was performed on all demographic and clinical aspects of this cohort, including the initial complaint, type of referral, number of complaints, procedure previously performed, diagnosis at our center, type of advice given, and rate and type of surgical intervention. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one eyes (69 patients) were included. Corneal refractive surgery was performed in 82% (108 eyes), and 11% (14 eyes) were seen after phakic intraocular lens (PIOL) implantation and 7% (9 eyes) after refractive lens exchange. The most common diagnoses were tear film dysfunction (30 eyes, 23%), residual refractive error (25 eyes, 19%), and cataract (20 eyes, 15%). Most patients (42 patients, 61%) were treated conservatively. In 27 patients (39%), 36 eyes (28%) were managed surgically. Severe visual loss was seen in 1 eye. CONCLUSIONS: No major problems were found in most second opinions after refractive surgery referral. Dry eyes, small residual refractive error, or higher-order aberrations were the most common complaints. Surgical intervention was needed in 36 eyes (28%), almost half of which were cataract extractions. Severe visual loss was seen in 1 eye with a PIOL. There was no incidence of severe visual loss in keratorefractive and refractive lens exchange procedures.

Effect of Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy on refraction in multifocal apodized diffractive pseudophakia.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect on refraction of neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser posterior capsulotomy for posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and to evaluate the correlation between automated and subjective refraction in multifocal apodized diffractive pseudophakia. METHODS: A retrospective study of 75 pseudophakic eyes (50 patients) with multifocal apodized diffractive pseudophakia, treated for PCO with Nd:YAG laser posterior capsulotomy, was performed. Pre- and postintervention values of refractive and visual parameters were compared. The outcomes of autorefraction and subjective refraction were also compared. RESULTS: Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity improved significantly after Nd:YAG capsulotomy (P<.001). No significant changes were noted in defocus equivalent, astigmatic power vectors J(0) and J(45), and overall blurring strength in subjective refraction and autorefraction. Spherical equivalent changed significantly in autorefraction (P=.008), but not in subjective refraction. Autorefraction and subjective refraction were highly correlated in spherical equivalent, defocus equivalent, and blurring strength (r(2)>0.59). In approximately 7% of eyes, a change of more than 0.50 diopters in spherical equivalent in subjective refraction occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy in patients with multifocal pseudophakia did not result in a change in refraction. However, 7% of eyes experienced a significant change in subjective refraction. Autorefraction correlated well with subjective refraction in apodized diffractive multifocal IOLs.