PURPOSE: Underestimation of required intraocular lens (IOL) power with resultant hyperopia is common in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes. A number of methods to minimize error have been proposed but most studies have been small and theoretical. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 34 eyes that had undergone routine phacoemulsification and IOL implantation after photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis. Sixteen eyes were included in the final analysis. Using known pre- and postoperative data, four methods were used to obtain keratometric values combined with three common IOL formulae (Holladay 2, SRK/T and Hoffer Q) and Koch's published Double-K nomogram. The Double-K method was also used in conjunction with the Holladay 2 formula. Target refractions were calculated and then compared to actual postoperative results. RESULTS: The Clinical History method at the spectacle plane produced the lowest mean K-values. Shammas adjustment formula combined with the Holladay 2 and Hoffer Q produced results closest to emmetropia. The Double-K methods produced the least number of hyperopic results. Overall, all methods would have resulted in unacceptably high rates of hyperopia and deviation from target refraction. CONCLUSIONS: No method produces acceptably consistent results because modern IOL formulae were designed for presurgical eyes. Accuracy will only be improved when new IOL formulae based on the anatomy of postrefractive eyes become available. Shammas adjustment formula and regression formulae are viable alternatives especially when there is a lack of preoperative data. The Double-K methods are best suited to avoiding a hyperopic surprise.
PURPOSE: Underestimation of required intraocular lens (IOL) power with resultant hyperopia is common in post-corneal refractive surgery eyes. A number of methods to minimize error have been proposed but most studies have been small and theoretical. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 34 eyes that had undergone routine phacoemulsification and IOL implantation after photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis. Sixteen eyes were included in the final analysis. Using known pre- and postoperative data, four methods were used to obtain keratometric values combined with three common IOL formulae (Holladay 2, SRK/T and Hoffer Q) and Koch's published Double-K nomogram. The Double-K method was also used in conjunction with the Holladay 2 formula. Target refractions were calculated and then compared to actual postoperative results. RESULTS: The Clinical History method at the spectacle plane produced the lowest mean K-values. Shammas adjustment formula combined with the Holladay 2 and Hoffer Q produced results closest to emmetropia. The Double-K methods produced the least number of hyperopic results. Overall, all methods would have resulted in unacceptably high rates of hyperopia and deviation from target refraction. CONCLUSIONS: No method produces acceptably consistent results because modern IOL formulae were designed for presurgical eyes. Accuracy will only be improved when new IOL formulae based on the anatomy of postrefractive eyes become available. Shammas adjustment formula and regression formulae are viable alternatives especially when there is a lack of preoperative data. The Double-K methods are best suited to avoiding a hyperopic surprise.