PURPOSE: To compare results of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic excimer laser surgery. SETTING: Private practice. METHODS: In this prospective study, eyes having phacoemulsification after myopic excimer laser surgery were classified into Group 1 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change known), Group 2 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change uncertain), and Group 3 (preoperative corneal power unavailable, refractive change known even if uncertain). The IOL power was calculated using the following methods: clinical history, Awwad, Camellin/Calossi, Diehl, Feiz, Ferrara, Latkany, Masket, Rosa, Savini, Shammas, Seitz/Speicher, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini. RESULTS: The lowest mean absolute errors (MAEs) in IOL power prediction in Group 1 (n = 12) and Group 2 (n = 11), respectively, were with the methods of Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.51 diopter [D] +/- 0.44 [SD] and 0.55 +/- 0.50 D), Seitz/Speicher (0.58 +/- 0.47 D and 0.54 +/- 0.45 D), Savini (0.60 +/- 0.44 D and 0.65 +/- 0.63 D), Masket (0.82 +/- 0.49 D and 0.69 +/- 0.51 D), and Shammas (0.77 +/- 0.43 D and 1.11 +/- 0.50 D). In Group 3 (n = 5), the lowest MAEs were with the methods of Masket (0.23 +/- 0.27 D), Savini (0.49 +/- 0.86 D), Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.68 +/- 0.36 D), Shammas (0.84 +/- 0.98 D), and Camellin/Calossi (0.91 +/- 0.84 D). CONCLUSIONS: When corneal power is known, the Seitz/Speicher method (with or without Savini adjustment) seems the best solution to obtain an accurate IOL power prediction. Otherwise, the Masket method may be the most reliable option. Copyright (c) 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To compare results of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation methods after myopic excimer laser surgery. SETTING: Private practice. METHODS: In this prospective study, eyes having phacoemulsification after myopic excimer laser surgery were classified into Group 1 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change known), Group 2 (preoperative corneal power available, refractive change uncertain), and Group 3 (preoperative corneal power unavailable, refractive change known even if uncertain). The IOL power was calculated using the following methods: clinical history, Awwad, Camellin/Calossi, Diehl, Feiz, Ferrara, Latkany, Masket, Rosa, Savini, Shammas, Seitz/Speicher, and Seitz/Speicher/Savini. RESULTS: The lowest mean absolute errors (MAEs) in IOL power prediction in Group 1 (n = 12) and Group 2 (n = 11), respectively, were with the methods of Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.51 diopter [D] +/- 0.44 [SD] and 0.55 +/- 0.50 D), Seitz/Speicher (0.58 +/- 0.47 D and 0.54 +/- 0.45 D), Savini (0.60 +/- 0.44 D and 0.65 +/- 0.63 D), Masket (0.82 +/- 0.49 D and 0.69 +/- 0.51 D), and Shammas (0.77 +/- 0.43 D and 1.11 +/- 0.50 D). In Group 3 (n = 5), the lowest MAEs were with the methods of Masket (0.23 +/- 0.27 D), Savini (0.49 +/- 0.86 D), Seitz/Speicher/Savini (0.68 +/- 0.36 D), Shammas (0.84 +/- 0.98 D), and Camellin/Calossi (0.91 +/- 0.84 D). CONCLUSIONS: When corneal power is known, the Seitz/Speicher method (with or without Savini adjustment) seems the best solution to obtain an accurate IOL power prediction. Otherwise, the Masket method may be the most reliable option. Copyright (c) 2010 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: David Huang; Maolong Tang; Li Wang; Xinbo Zhang; Rebecca L Armour; Devin M Gattey; Lorinna H Lombardi; Douglas D Koch Journal: Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc Date: 2013-09
Authors: Vicente J Camps; David P Piñero; Veronica Mateo; Celia García; Alberto Artola; Rafael Pérez-Cambrodi; Pedro Ruiz-Fortes Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 1.909