Ratio of torus and equivalent power to refractive cylinder and spherical equivalent in phakic lenses - a Monte-Carlo simulation study.
IOL power calculation
Monte-Carlo simulation
ametropia
astigmatism
phakic lenses
refraction error
Journal
Acta ophthalmologica
ISSN: 1755-3768
Titre abrégé: Acta Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101468102
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
12
06
2020
accepted:
18
04
2021
pubmed:
22
5
2021
medline:
18
1
2022
entrez:
21
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Spherical and astigmatic powers for phakic intraocular lenses are frequently calculated using fixed ratios of phakic lens refractive power to refractive spherical equivalent, and of phakic lens astigmatism to refractive cylinder. In this study, a Monte-Carlo simulation based on biometric data was used to investigate how variations in biometrics affect these ratios, in order to improve the calculation of implantable lens parameters. A data set of over sixteen thousand biometric measurements including axial length, phakic anterior chamber depth, and corneal equivalent and astigmatic power was used to construct a multidimensional probability density distribution. From this, we determined the axial position of the implanted lens and estimated the refractive spherical equivalent and refractive cylinder. A generic data model resampled the density distributions and interactions between variables, and the implantable lens power was determined using vergence propagation. 50 000 artificial data sets were used to calculate the phakic lens spherical equivalent and astigmatism required for emmetropization, and to determine the corresponding ratios for these two values. The spherical ratio ranged from 1.0640 to 1.3723 and the astigmatic ratio from 1.0501 to 1.4340. Both ratios are unaffected by the corneal spherical / astigmatic powers, or the refractive cylinder, but show strong correlation with the refractive spherical equivalent, mild correlation with the lens axial position, and moderate negative correlation with axial length. As a simplification, these ratios could be modelled using a bi-variable linear regression based on the first two of these factors. Fixed spherical and astigmatic ratios should not be used when selecting high refractive power phakic IOLs as their variation can result in refractive errors of up to ±0.3 D for a 8 D lens. Both ratios can be estimated with clinically acceptable precision using a linear regression based on the refractive spherical equivalent and the axial position.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Spherical and astigmatic powers for phakic intraocular lenses are frequently calculated using fixed ratios of phakic lens refractive power to refractive spherical equivalent, and of phakic lens astigmatism to refractive cylinder. In this study, a Monte-Carlo simulation based on biometric data was used to investigate how variations in biometrics affect these ratios, in order to improve the calculation of implantable lens parameters.
METHODS
METHODS
A data set of over sixteen thousand biometric measurements including axial length, phakic anterior chamber depth, and corneal equivalent and astigmatic power was used to construct a multidimensional probability density distribution. From this, we determined the axial position of the implanted lens and estimated the refractive spherical equivalent and refractive cylinder. A generic data model resampled the density distributions and interactions between variables, and the implantable lens power was determined using vergence propagation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
50 000 artificial data sets were used to calculate the phakic lens spherical equivalent and astigmatism required for emmetropization, and to determine the corresponding ratios for these two values. The spherical ratio ranged from 1.0640 to 1.3723 and the astigmatic ratio from 1.0501 to 1.4340. Both ratios are unaffected by the corneal spherical / astigmatic powers, or the refractive cylinder, but show strong correlation with the refractive spherical equivalent, mild correlation with the lens axial position, and moderate negative correlation with axial length. As a simplification, these ratios could be modelled using a bi-variable linear regression based on the first two of these factors.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Fixed spherical and astigmatic ratios should not be used when selecting high refractive power phakic IOLs as their variation can result in refractive errors of up to ±0.3 D for a 8 D lens. Both ratios can be estimated with clinically acceptable precision using a linear regression based on the refractive spherical equivalent and the axial position.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58-67Informations de copyright
© 2021 Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica Foundation. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Aas K, Czado C, Frigessi A & Bakken H (2009): Pair-copula constructions of multiple dependence. IME 44: 182-198.
Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Kleinmann G et al. (2015): Prediction of refractive outcomes with toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 41: 936-944.
Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, González-Meijome J & Montés-Micó R (2012): Long-term evaluation of the central vault after phakic Collamer(R) lens (ICL) implantation using OCT. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250: 1807-1812.
Alpins N, Ong JK & Stamatelatos G (2014): Refractive surprise after toric intraocular lens implantation: graph analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 40: 283-294.
Atchison DA & Smith G (2000): Optics of the human eye. Edinburgh: Butterworth Heinemann.
Best DJ & Roberts DE (1975): Algorithm AS 89: The upper tail probabilities of Spearman's rho. Appl Stat 24: 377-379.
Bouyé EV, Durrleman BEV, Nikeghbali A, Riboulet G & Roncalli T (2000): Copulas for finance: A reading guide and some applications. Working Paper. Groupe de Recherche Opérationnelle, Crédit Lyonnais, Paris.
Donaldson K, Fernández-Vega-Cueto L, Davidson R et al. (2018): Perioperative assessment for refractive cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 44: 642-653.
Eppig T, Gillner M, Walter S, Viestenz A & Langenbucher A (2011): Calculation of phakic intraocular lenses. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 228: 690-697.
Fechner PU, van der Heijde GL & Worst JG (1988): Intraocular lens for the correction of myopia of the phakic eye. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 193: 29-34.
Fechner PU, van der Heijde GL & Worst JG (1989): The correction of myopia by lens implantation into phakic eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 107: 659-663.
Fotouhi A, Hashemi H, Yekta AA, Mohammad K & Khoob MK (2011): Characteristics of astigmatism in a population of schoolchildren. Optom Vis Sci 88: 1054-1059.
Gibbons JD & Subhabrata C. (2011): Nonparametric Statistical Inference. In: Gibbons JD: Balakrishnan N & Schucany WR (eds.). Statistics: Textbooks and monographs. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Hassenstein A, Niemeck F, Giannakakis K & Klemm M (2017): Toric add-on intraocular lenses for correction of high astigmatism after pseudophakic keratoplasty. Ophthalmologe 114: 549-555.
Hill W & Potvin R (2008): Monte Carlo simulation of expected outcomes with the AcrySof toric intraocular lens. BMC Ophthalmol 27: 8-22.
Hollander M, Wolfe DA & Chicken E (2013): Nonparametric statistical methods, 3rd Edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons Inc.
Irving EL, Machan CM, Lam S, Hrynchak PK & Lillakas L (2019): Refractive error magnitude and variability: Relation to age. J Optom 12: 55-63.
Kendall M (1970): Rank correlation methods. In: Kendall M & Gibbons JD (eds.). Griffin book series, 5th Edn. New York, NY: Hafner Press.
Kern C, El Kaissi L, Kortuem K, Shajari M, Vounotrypidis E, Langenbucher A, Priglinger S & Mayer WJ (2020): Comparing refractive outcomes of a standard industry toric IOL calculator using anterior corneal astigmatism and total corneal refractive power. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258: 345-350.
Kohnen T, Kasper T & Terzi E (2005): Intraocular lenses for correction of refraction errors. Part II. Phakic posterior chamber lenses and refractive lens exchange with posterior chamber lens implantation. Ophthalmologe 102: 1105-1117.
Langenbucher A, Haigis W & Seitz B (2004a): Difficult lens power calculations. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 15: 1-9.
Langenbucher A, Reese S, Sauer T & Seitz B (2004b): Matrix-based calculation scheme for toric intraocular lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 24: 511-519.
Langenbucher A & Seitz B (2004): Computerized calculation scheme for toric intraocular lenses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 82: 270-276.
Langenbucher A, Szentmáry N & Seitz B (2007a): Calculating the power of toric phakic intraocular lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 27: 373-380.
Langenbucher A, Viestenz A, Seitz B & Brünner H (2007b): Computerized calculation scheme for retinal image size after implantation of toric intraocular lenses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85: 92-98.
Langenbucher A, Viestenz A, Szentmáry N, Seitz B & Viestenz A (2008): Calculation of pseudophakic and phakic toric lenses for correction of corneal astigmatism-theory and clinical aspects. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 225: 541-547.
Medical Advisory Secretariat (2009): Phakic intraocular lenses for the treatment of refractive errors: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 9: 1-120.
Sanfilippo PG, Yazar S, Kearns L, Sherwin JC, Hewitt AW & Mackey DA (2015): Distribution of astigmatism as a function of age in an Australian population. Acta Ophthalmol 93: e377-e385. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.1264413
Savini G, Hoffer KJ & Ducoli P (2013): A new slant on toric intraocular lens power calculation. J Refract Surg 29: 348-354.
Schrecker J, Kröber S & Langenbucher A (2013): Additional multifocal sulcus-based intraocular lens: Alternative to multifocal intraocularlens in the capsular bag. J Cataract Refract Surg 39: 548-555.
Schrecker J & Langenbucher A (2016): Visual performance in the long term with secondary add-on versus primary capsular bag multifocal intraocular lenses. J Refractive Surgery 32: 742-747.
Schuster AK, Pfeiffer N, Schulz A et al. (2017): Refractive, corneal and ocular residual astigmatism: distribution in a German population and age-dependency - the Gutenberg health study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 255: 2493-2501.
Schwemm M, Schröder S, Eppig T & Langenbucher A (2017): [IOLCon - International internet platform for optimization of formula constants]. Proceedings 30. International Congress of DOC, Nuremberg doi:https://doi.org/10.3205/17doc112
Sheeladevi S, Seelam B, Nukella PB, Modi A, Ali R & Keay L (2018): Prevalence of refractive errors in children in India: A systematic review. Clin Exp Optom 101: 495-503.
Sheldon MR (2012): Simulation, 5th Edn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN: 9780124159716.
Williams KM, Verhoeven VJ, Cumberland P et al. (2015): Prevalence of refractive error in Europe: The European Eye Epidemiology E(3) Consortium. Eur J Epidemiol 30: 305-315.