Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus Eyes Comparing Keratometry, Total Keratometry, and Newer Formulae
•IOL calculations in keratoconus (KCN) eyes are difficult compared with non-KCN eyes.•Recently, new formulae and corneal power methods have been suggested for KCN eyes.•In severe KCN eyes, KCN specific formulas using total keratometry (TK) perform favorably, and the Barrett Universal True K KCN: M-P...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of ophthalmology 2023-09, Vol.253, p.206-214 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •IOL calculations in keratoconus (KCN) eyes are difficult compared with non-KCN eyes.•Recently, new formulae and corneal power methods have been suggested for KCN eyes.•In severe KCN eyes, KCN specific formulas using total keratometry (TK) perform favorably, and the Barrett Universal True K KCN: M-PCA performs best.•In moderate KCN eyes, TK improves the accuracy of new formulae such as the EVO 2.0 formula.•Classical formulae other than SRK/T should be avoided in KCN eyes.
To compare the utility of keratometry vs total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae.
Retrospective cohort study.
This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who underwent cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These included 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Universal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical significance testing.
KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN formula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK values are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the highest RMSE.
KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, especially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-9394 1879-1891 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.037 |