Corneal Refractive Power Estimation and Intraocular Lens Calculation after Hyperopic LASIK

Shady T. Awwad, Patrick S. Kelley, Robert W Bowman, Harrison D Cavanagh, James P McCulley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To identify key independent variables in estimating corneal refractive power (KBC) after hyperopic LASIK. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: We included 24 eyes of 16 hyperopic patients who underwent LASIK with subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the same eye. Methods: Pre-LASIK and post-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE) refractions and topographies, axial length, implant type and power, and 3-month postphacoemulsification SE were recorded. Using the double-K Hoffer Q formula, corneal power was backcalculated for every eye (KBC), regression-based formulas derived, and corresponding IOL powers calculated and compared with published methods. Main Outcome Measures: The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and arithmetic and absolute corneal and IOL power errors. Results: Adjusting either the average central corneal power (ACCP3mm) or SimK based on the laser-induced spherical equivalent change (ΔSE) resulted in an estimated corneal power (ACCPadj and SimKadj) with highest correlation with KBC (PCC = 0.940 and 0.956, respectively) and lowest absolute corneal estimation error (0.37±0.45 and 0.38±0.39 diopter [D], respectively). The ACCPadj closely mirrored published ΔSE-based adjustments of central corneal power on different topographers, whereas ΔSE-based SimK adjustments varied across platforms. Using ACCPadj or SimKadj in the double-K Hoffer Q, using ACCP3mm or SimK in single-K Hoffer Q and adjusting the resultant IOL power based on ΔSE, or applying Masket's formula all yielded accurate and similar IOL powers. The Latkany method consistently underestimated IOL power. The Feiz-Mannis and clinical history methods yielded poor IOL correlations and large IOL errors. Conclusion: After hyperopic LASIK, adjusting either corneal power or IOL power based on ΔSE accurately estimates the appropriate IOL power. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalOphthalmology
Volume116
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2009

Fingerprint

Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Intraocular Lenses
Social Adjustment
Disclosure
Power (Psychology)
Intraocular Lens Implantation
Phacoemulsification
Lasers
Retrospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Corneal Refractive Power Estimation and Intraocular Lens Calculation after Hyperopic LASIK. / Awwad, Shady T.; Kelley, Patrick S.; Bowman, Robert W; Cavanagh, Harrison D; McCulley, James P.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 116, No. 3, 03.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{86ad3c8d30ac4d6f9217fcabdf9f96de,
title = "Corneal Refractive Power Estimation and Intraocular Lens Calculation after Hyperopic LASIK",
abstract = "Purpose: To identify key independent variables in estimating corneal refractive power (KBC) after hyperopic LASIK. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: We included 24 eyes of 16 hyperopic patients who underwent LASIK with subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the same eye. Methods: Pre-LASIK and post-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE) refractions and topographies, axial length, implant type and power, and 3-month postphacoemulsification SE were recorded. Using the double-K Hoffer Q formula, corneal power was backcalculated for every eye (KBC), regression-based formulas derived, and corresponding IOL powers calculated and compared with published methods. Main Outcome Measures: The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and arithmetic and absolute corneal and IOL power errors. Results: Adjusting either the average central corneal power (ACCP3mm) or SimK based on the laser-induced spherical equivalent change (ΔSE) resulted in an estimated corneal power (ACCPadj and SimKadj) with highest correlation with KBC (PCC = 0.940 and 0.956, respectively) and lowest absolute corneal estimation error (0.37±0.45 and 0.38±0.39 diopter [D], respectively). The ACCPadj closely mirrored published ΔSE-based adjustments of central corneal power on different topographers, whereas ΔSE-based SimK adjustments varied across platforms. Using ACCPadj or SimKadj in the double-K Hoffer Q, using ACCP3mm or SimK in single-K Hoffer Q and adjusting the resultant IOL power based on ΔSE, or applying Masket's formula all yielded accurate and similar IOL powers. The Latkany method consistently underestimated IOL power. The Feiz-Mannis and clinical history methods yielded poor IOL correlations and large IOL errors. Conclusion: After hyperopic LASIK, adjusting either corneal power or IOL power based on ΔSE accurately estimates the appropriate IOL power. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.",
author = "Awwad, {Shady T.} and Kelley, {Patrick S.} and Bowman, {Robert W} and Cavanagh, {Harrison D} and McCulley, {James P}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.045",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corneal Refractive Power Estimation and Intraocular Lens Calculation after Hyperopic LASIK

AU - Awwad, Shady T.

AU - Kelley, Patrick S.

AU - Bowman, Robert W

AU - Cavanagh, Harrison D

AU - McCulley, James P

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - Purpose: To identify key independent variables in estimating corneal refractive power (KBC) after hyperopic LASIK. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: We included 24 eyes of 16 hyperopic patients who underwent LASIK with subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the same eye. Methods: Pre-LASIK and post-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE) refractions and topographies, axial length, implant type and power, and 3-month postphacoemulsification SE were recorded. Using the double-K Hoffer Q formula, corneal power was backcalculated for every eye (KBC), regression-based formulas derived, and corresponding IOL powers calculated and compared with published methods. Main Outcome Measures: The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and arithmetic and absolute corneal and IOL power errors. Results: Adjusting either the average central corneal power (ACCP3mm) or SimK based on the laser-induced spherical equivalent change (ΔSE) resulted in an estimated corneal power (ACCPadj and SimKadj) with highest correlation with KBC (PCC = 0.940 and 0.956, respectively) and lowest absolute corneal estimation error (0.37±0.45 and 0.38±0.39 diopter [D], respectively). The ACCPadj closely mirrored published ΔSE-based adjustments of central corneal power on different topographers, whereas ΔSE-based SimK adjustments varied across platforms. Using ACCPadj or SimKadj in the double-K Hoffer Q, using ACCP3mm or SimK in single-K Hoffer Q and adjusting the resultant IOL power based on ΔSE, or applying Masket's formula all yielded accurate and similar IOL powers. The Latkany method consistently underestimated IOL power. The Feiz-Mannis and clinical history methods yielded poor IOL correlations and large IOL errors. Conclusion: After hyperopic LASIK, adjusting either corneal power or IOL power based on ΔSE accurately estimates the appropriate IOL power. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

AB - Purpose: To identify key independent variables in estimating corneal refractive power (KBC) after hyperopic LASIK. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: We included 24 eyes of 16 hyperopic patients who underwent LASIK with subsequent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation in the same eye. Methods: Pre-LASIK and post-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE) refractions and topographies, axial length, implant type and power, and 3-month postphacoemulsification SE were recorded. Using the double-K Hoffer Q formula, corneal power was backcalculated for every eye (KBC), regression-based formulas derived, and corresponding IOL powers calculated and compared with published methods. Main Outcome Measures: The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) and arithmetic and absolute corneal and IOL power errors. Results: Adjusting either the average central corneal power (ACCP3mm) or SimK based on the laser-induced spherical equivalent change (ΔSE) resulted in an estimated corneal power (ACCPadj and SimKadj) with highest correlation with KBC (PCC = 0.940 and 0.956, respectively) and lowest absolute corneal estimation error (0.37±0.45 and 0.38±0.39 diopter [D], respectively). The ACCPadj closely mirrored published ΔSE-based adjustments of central corneal power on different topographers, whereas ΔSE-based SimK adjustments varied across platforms. Using ACCPadj or SimKadj in the double-K Hoffer Q, using ACCP3mm or SimK in single-K Hoffer Q and adjusting the resultant IOL power based on ΔSE, or applying Masket's formula all yielded accurate and similar IOL powers. The Latkany method consistently underestimated IOL power. The Feiz-Mannis and clinical history methods yielded poor IOL correlations and large IOL errors. Conclusion: After hyperopic LASIK, adjusting either corneal power or IOL power based on ΔSE accurately estimates the appropriate IOL power. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=61349156721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=61349156721&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.045

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.045

M3 - Article

VL - 116

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 3

ER -