Eric B Hamill1, Li Wang1, Hayley K Chopra1, Warren Hill1, Douglas D Koch2. 1. From the Cullen Eye Institute (Hamill, Wang, Chopra, Hill, Koch), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, USA; Shanxi Eye Hospital (Wang), Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China. 2. From the Cullen Eye Institute (Hamill, Wang, Chopra, Hill, Koch), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and East Valley Ophthalmology (Hill), Mesa, Arizona, USA; Shanxi Eye Hospital (Wang), Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, China. Electronic address: dkoch@bcm.tmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in patients with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. METHODS: The 7 formulas evaluated were the adjusted Atlas 0-3, Masket, Modified Masket, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K No-History. The Masket and Modified Masket were calculated using the single-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas; the adjusted Atlas 0-3 was calculated using the double-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. The IOL power predicted by each formula was calculated by targeting the postoperative manifest refraction. The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the implanted IOL power. The mean IOL prediction error, median absolute refractive prediction error, and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-one eyes of 21 patients were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the median absolute refractive prediction error or percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction between formulas or methods. The IOL mean prediction errors were comparable between the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q calculations for all formulas except for a greater error for the double-K version of the Hoffer Q of the adjusted Atlas 0-3. CONCLUSION: In eyes that had hyperopic LASIK or PRK, there were no significant differences in the accuracy between the 7 IOL calculation formulas.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of 7 intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas in patients with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) or excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. METHODS: The 7 formulas evaluated were the adjusted Atlas 0-3, Masket, Modified Masket, Haigis-L, Shammas-PL, Barrett True-K, and Barrett True-K No-History. The Masket and Modified Masket were calculated using the single-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q formulas; the adjusted Atlas 0-3 was calculated using the double-K version of Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q. The IOL power predicted by each formula was calculated by targeting the postoperative manifest refraction. The IOL prediction error was obtained by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the implanted IOL power. The mean IOL prediction error, median absolute refractive prediction error, and percentages of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-one eyes of 21 patients were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the median absolute refractive prediction error or percentages of eyes within ±0.50 D or ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction between formulas or methods. The IOL mean prediction errors were comparable between the Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q calculations for all formulas except for a greater error for the double-K version of the Hoffer Q of the adjusted Atlas 0-3. CONCLUSION: In eyes that had hyperopic LASIK or PRK, there were no significant differences in the accuracy between the 7 IOL calculation formulas.