The VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods after radial keratotomy.

Journal

Eye (London, England)

ISSN: 1476-5454

Titre abrégé: Eye (Lond)

Pays: England

ID NLM: 8703986

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 Jun 2024

Historique:

received: 13 12 2023

accepted: 19 06 2024

revised: 15 05 2024

medline: 29 6 2024

pubmed: 29 6 2024

entrez: 28 6 2024

Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To investigate the accuracy of the VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods in cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (RK). The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods were collated with nine formulas: Barrett True K (No History), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer Q (Double-K), Holladay 1 (Double-K), Holladay 2 (Double-K), PEARL-DGS (RK), SRK/T (Double-K), and T2 (Double-K). With SS-OCT biometry (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec), data of 78 eyes from 78 patients with previous RK was included. Optimised lens constants were sourced from the IOL Con website. Subjective refraction was obtained at 4 to 5 months postoperatively. The root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were chosen as primary outcomes and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analysed. Statistical significance (Bootstrap-t test, P < 0.05) was shown by VRF-GL, VRF-L, and Haigis formulas with the lowest RMSAE (0.813 D, 0.816 D and 0.824 D) and MedAE (0.511 D, 0.497 D and 0.533 D) values. The Barrett True K formula was less predictable (0.836 and 0.580, respectively). The VRF-L, VRF-GL, and Haigis achieved the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (52.56%, 50.00%, and 46.15%) and ±1.00 D (79.49%, 79.49%, and 80.77% respectively). The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods demonstrated higher accuracy and were comparable with existing methods in eyes after RK. The Haigis was an alternative option with a higher percentage of eyes with a PE within ±1.00 D (80.77%).

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND

To investigate the accuracy of the VRF-L and VRF-GL IOL power calculation methods in cataract surgery after radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS METHODS

The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods were collated with nine formulas: Barrett True K (No History), Haigis, Hoffer Q, Hoffer Q (Double-K), Holladay 1 (Double-K), Holladay 2 (Double-K), PEARL-DGS (RK), SRK/T (Double-K), and T2 (Double-K). With SS-OCT biometry (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec), data of 78 eyes from 78 patients with previous RK was included. Optimised lens constants were sourced from the IOL Con website. Subjective refraction was obtained at 4 to 5 months postoperatively. The root mean square absolute error (RMSAE) and median absolute error (MedAE) were chosen as primary outcomes and the percentage of eyes with PEs within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were analysed.

RESULTS RESULTS

Statistical significance (Bootstrap-t test, P < 0.05) was shown by VRF-GL, VRF-L, and Haigis formulas with the lowest RMSAE (0.813 D, 0.816 D and 0.824 D) and MedAE (0.511 D, 0.497 D and 0.533 D) values. The Barrett True K formula was less predictable (0.836 and 0.580, respectively). The VRF-L, VRF-GL, and Haigis achieved the highest percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.50 D (52.56%, 50.00%, and 46.15%) and ±1.00 D (79.49%, 79.49%, and 80.77% respectively).

CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS

The VRF-L and VRF-GL methods demonstrated higher accuracy and were comparable with existing methods in eyes after RK. The Haigis was an alternative option with a higher percentage of eyes with a PE within ±1.00 D (80.77%).

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41433-024-03195-x PMID: 38942910

pubmed: 38942910

doi: 10.1038/s41433-024-03195-x

pii: 10.1038/s41433-024-03195-x

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Informations de copyright

Références

Turnbull AMJ, Crawford GJ, Barrett GD. Methods for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Surgery after Radial Keratotomy. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.08.019 .

doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2019.08.019 pubmed: 31561878

Geggel HS. Intraocular lens power selection after radial keratotomy: topography, manual, and IOLMaster keratometry results using Haigis formulas. Ophthalmology. 2015;122:897–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.12.002 .

doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.12.002 pubmed: 25601534

Li M, Wang JD, Zhang JS, Mao YY, Cao K, Wan XH. Comparison of the accuracy of three intraocular lens power calculation formulas in cataract patients with prior radial keratotomy. Eur J Med Res. 2023;28:20 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-00998-8 .

doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-00998-8 pubmed: 36631867 pmcid: 9832763

Tavares R, Ferreira G, Ghanem VC, Ghanem RC. IOL power calculation after radial keratotomy using the Haigis and Barrett True‑K formulas. J Refract Surg. 2020;36:832–7. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20200930-02 .

doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20200930-02

Curado SX, Hida WT, Vilar CMC, Ordones VL, Chaves MAP, Tzelikis PF. Intraoperative Aberrometry Versus Preoperative Biometry for IOL Power Selection After Radial Keratotomy: A Prospective Study. J Refract Surg. 2019;35:656–61. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20190913-01 .

doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20190913-01 pubmed: 31610007

Chavez S, Celikkol L, Feldman ST. Hyperopic shift and myopic regression in a patient 7 years after bilateral refractive keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1996;12:160–2. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081-597X-19960101-27 .

doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-19960101-27 pubmed: 8963806

Chhadva P, Cabot F, Galor A, Yoo SH. Long-term outcomes of radial keratotomy, laser in situ keratomileusis, and astigmatic keratotomy performed consecutively over a period of 21 years. Case Rep Ophthalmol Med. 2015;2015:592495 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/592495 .

doi: 10.1155/2015/592495 pubmed: 25874145 pmcid: 4383406

Schanzlin DJ, Santos VR, Waring III GO, Lynn M, Bourque L, Cantillo N, et al. Diurnal change in refraction, corneal curvature, visual acuity, and intraocular pressure after radial keratotomy in the PERK study. Ophthalmol. 1986;93:167–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(86)33765-5 .

McDonnell P, Nizam A, Lynn M, Waring GI. Morning-toevening change in refraction, corneal curvature, and visual acuity 11 years after radial keratotomy in the Prospective Evaluation of Radial Keratotomy study. Ophthalmol. 1996;103:233–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30711-2 .

doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(96)30711-2

Aramberri J. IOL power calculation after corneal refractive surgery: the double-K method. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:2063–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00957-x .

doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(03)00957-x pubmed: 14670413

Wang L, Hill WE, Koch DD. Evaluation of intraocular lens power prediction methods using the American Society of Cataract and refractive surgeons post‑keratorefractive intraocular lens power calculator. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1466–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.03.044 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.03.044 pubmed: 20692556

Voytsekhivskyy OV. Development and Clinical Accuracy of a New Intraocular Lens Power Formula (VRF) Compared to Other Formulas. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;185:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.020 .

doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.10.020 pubmed: 29102605

Voytsekhivskyy OV. Accuracy of the VRF and VRF-G Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry. Clin Ophthalmol. 2023;17:3663–72. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S439287 .

doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S439287 pubmed: 38050557 pmcid: 10693751

Hipólito-Fernandes D, Luís ME, Gil P, Maduro V, Feijão J, Voytsekhivskyy, O, et al. VRF-G, a New Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formula: A 13-Formulas Comparison Study. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:4395–402. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S290125 .

doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S290125 pubmed: 33364744 pmcid: 7751728

Barrett GD. True-K formula: new approach to biometry after LASIK. Presented at: the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons’ Annual Meeting, April 3–8, 2009, San-Francisco, California; 2009.

Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for IOL calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:765–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004170000188 .

doi: 10.1007/s004170000188 pubmed: 11045345

Hoffer KJ. The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;19:700–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.08.054 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.08.054 pubmed: 8271165

Holladay JT, Prager TC, Chandler TY, Musgrove KH, Lewis JW, Ruiz RS. A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988;14:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(88)80059-2 .

doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(88)80059-2 pubmed: 3339543

Koch DD, Wang L. Calculating IOL power in eyes that have had refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:2039–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.10.009 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2003.10.009 pubmed: 14670401

Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16:333–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80705-5 .

doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80705-5 pubmed: 2355321

Sheard RM, Smith GT, Cooke DL. Improving the prediction accuracy of the SRK/T formula: the T2 formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:1829–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.031 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.05.031 pubmed: 21029888

Debellemanière G, Dubois M, Gauvin M, Wallerstein A, Brenner LF, Rampat R, et al. The PEARL-DGS formula: the development of an open-source machine learning-based thick IOL calculation formula. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;232:58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.05.004 .

doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2021.05.004 pubmed: 33992611

Wang L, Koch DD, Hill W, Abulafia A. Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III. Criteria for analyzing outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017;43:999–1002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.003 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.08.003 pubmed: 28917430

Wang L, Tang M, Huang D, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Comparison of newer IOL power calculation methods for post-corneal refractive surgery eyes. Ophthalmol. 2015;122:2443–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.08.037 .

doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.08.037

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. https://www.R-project.org .

Holladay JT, Wilcox RR, Koch DD, Wang L. Review and recommendations for univariate statistical analysis of spherical equivalent prediction error for intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:65–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000370 .

doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000370 pubmed: 32769751

Holladay JT, Wilcox RR, Koch DD, Wang L. Statistics of prediction error for non-Gaussian dependent and independent datasets. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49:440–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001165 .

doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001165 pubmed: 36975014

Savini G, Taroni L, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of total Keratometry and standard Keratometry by the IOLMaster 700 and comparison to total corneal astigmatism by Scheimpflug imaging. Eye. 2021;35:307–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-01245-8 .

doi: 10.1038/s41433-020-01245-8 pubmed: 33139878

Ma JX, Tang M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Huang D, Koch DD. Comparison of Newer IOL Power Calculation Methods for Eyes With Previous Radial Keratotomy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2016;57:OCT162–8. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18948 .

doi: 10.1167/iovs.15-18948 pubmed: 27409468 pmcid: 4968777

Jiang CC, Hodson NM, Johnson DA, Kheirkhah A. Accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas for AcrySof SN60WF versus Tecnis ZCB00 intraocular lenses. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2022;17:344–52. https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i3.11571 .

doi: 10.18502/jovr.v17i3.11571

Galzignato A, Lupardi E, Hoffer KJ, Barboni P, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Savini G. Repeatability of new optical biometer and agreement with 2 validated optical biometers, all based on SS-OCT. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001023 .

doi: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001023 pubmed: 36026703

Cooke DL, Cooke TL. A comparison of two methods to calculate axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45:284–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.039 .

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2018.10.039 pubmed: 30851805