• Users Online: 340
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 36  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 177-182

Intraocular lens power calculation after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery: A retrospective study to compare the predictability and the efficacy of commonly used and modified formulas


1 Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University; Beirut Eye and ENT Specialist Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon
2 Hȏtel-Dieu de France Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon
3 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
4 Beirut Eye and ENT Specialist Hospital; Hȏtel-Dieu de France Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon
5 Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lebanese University; Beirut Eye and ENT Specialist Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Ophthalmology, Mediclinic Dubai Mall, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Elias Jarade
Beirut Eye Specialist Hospital, Al-Mathaf Square, P. O. Box 116-5311, Beirut

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_185_21

Rights and Permissions

PURPOSE: Our article aims to assess the accuracy of modified and commonly used formulas of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery. Methods: This is a retrospective study, with data retrieved for 50 eyes of 32 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery after excimer laser corneal refractive surgery. The expected spherical equivalent was calculated using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) IOL power calculator for Shammas and Barrett True-K, using three-fourth generation formulas (Haigis-L, Barrett True-K no history, and Holladay 2), and using three-third generation formulas (SRKT, Holladay 1, and Hoffer Q) with single k, as a reference, and adjusting these formulas by calculating the keratometry readings by two methods (Jarade's index and formula). The mean refractive error and mean absolute refractive error (MARE) were calculated at the 1 postoperative month. RESULTS: When all data was available (eight eyes), 13 formulas were compared. Holladay 1 as modified by Jarade's index and formula, and Hoffer Q as modified by Jarade's formula resulted in MARE <0.75D (P < 0.05). In the group of 25 eyes with only ablation available, the formulas with MARE <0.75D were Haigis L, Barrett TK (from ASCRS), Hoffer Q, and the three conventional formulas in Jarade's index (P < 0.001). In the group of 17 eyes with no available prerefractive data, only Haigis-L and Barret TK (no history) had a MARE <0.75 D. CONCLUSION: The use of Hoffer Q or Holladay 1, when prerefractive data are available, gives reliable results with Jarade's index.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed586    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal