Adi Abulafia1, Warren E Hill2, Douglas D Koch2, Li Wang2, Graham D Barrett2. 1. From the Department of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, and the Ein-Tal Eye Center (Abulafia), Tel-Aviv, Israel; East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, and the Cullen Eye Institute (Koch, Wang), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; The Lions Eye Institute (Barrett), Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia. Electronic address: adi.abulafia@gmail.com. 2. From the Department of Ophthalmology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, and the Ein-Tal Eye Center (Abulafia), Tel-Aviv, Israel; East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, and the Cullen Eye Institute (Koch, Wang), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; The Lions Eye Institute (Barrett), Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula with other methods available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive surgery intraocular lens (IOL) power calculator for the prediction of IOL power after previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula was compared with the Adjusted Atlas (4.0 mm zone), Masket, modified-Masket, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L methods to calculate IOL power. A separate analysis of 2 no-history methods (Shammas and Haigis-L) was performed and compared with the Barrett True-K no-history option. RESULTS: Eighty-eight eyes were available for analysis. The Barrett True-K formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error than all other formulas except the Masket, smaller variances compared with the Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L, and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) of predicted error in refraction compared with the Adjusted Atlas, Masket, and modified Masket methods (all P < .05). In eyes with no historical data, the Barrett True-K no-history formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of the predicted error in refraction than the Shammas and the Haigis-L formulas (both P < .05). CONCLUSION: The Barrett True-K formula was either equal to or better than alternative methods available on the ASCRS online calculator for predicting IOL power in eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula with other methods available on the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) post-refractive surgery intraocular lens (IOL) power calculator for the prediction of IOL power after previous myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. METHODS: The accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula was compared with the Adjusted Atlas (4.0 mm zone), Masket, modified-Masket, Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L methods to calculate IOL power. A separate analysis of 2 no-history methods (Shammas and Haigis-L) was performed and compared with the Barrett True-K no-history option. RESULTS: Eighty-eight eyes were available for analysis. The Barrett True-K formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error than all other formulas except the Masket, smaller variances compared with the Wang-Koch-Maloney, Shammas, and Haigis-L, and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) of predicted error in refraction compared with the Adjusted Atlas, Masket, and modified Masket methods (all P < .05). In eyes with no historical data, the Barrett True-K no-history formula had a significantly smaller median absolute refraction prediction error and a greater percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D of the predicted error in refraction than the Shammas and the Haigis-L formulas (both P < .05). CONCLUSION: The Barrett True-K formula was either equal to or better than alternative methods available on the ASCRS online calculator for predicting IOL power in eyes with previous myopic LASIK or PRK.
Authors: Jack X Ma; Maolong Tang; Li Wang; Mitchell P Weikert; David Huang; Douglas D Koch Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 4.799