Total keratometry is not better than standard keratometry: An IOL refractive prediction outcome evaluation for cataract surgery

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2564125/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Total keratometry is not better than standard keratometry: An IOL refractive prediction outcome evaluation for cataract surgery

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2564125/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 07 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Ophthalmology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Purpose

To evaluate if total keratometry (TK) is better than standard keratometry (K) for predicting an accurate intraocular lens (IOL) refractive outcome for cataract surgery in four IOL power calculation formulas.

Methods

449 eyes that underwent monofocal intraocular lens implantation were enrolled in this study. IOLMaster 700 was used for optical biometry. Median absolute prediction error (MedAE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute prediction error (MedAE), proportions of eyes within ± 0.25 diopters (D), ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D, ± 2.00 D adjusted prediction error, and formula performance index (FPI) were calculated for each K- and TK-based formula.

Results

Overall, the accuracy of each TK and K formula was comparable. The MAEs and MedAEs showed no difference between the K-based and the TK-based formula. The percent of eyes within ± 0.25 D for TK was not significantly different from that for K. The analysis of PE across various optical dimensions revealed that TK had no effect on the refractive results in eyes with different preoperative axial length, anterior chamber depth, keratometry, and lens thickness. K-based Barrett Universal II formula performed showed the leading FPI score and had the best refractive prediction outcomes among the four formulas.

Conclusion

In all investigated formulas, the predictive accuracy of TK-based formulas is not superior than that of standard K-based formulas. TK cannot substitute K for IOL power calculation in monofocal IOL implantation cataract surgery.

Total keratometry

IOL power calculation formula

Refractive prediction accuracy

IOLMaster 700

Cataract procedure has become one of the most frequently conducted elective operations globally as we entered the era of refractive surgery[1]. The surgery proposes a higher requirement for its postoperative effect. Therefore, an accurate preoperative measurement of optical biometry is the key to a precise postoperative refractive outcome and spectacle-free vision[2]. Corneal power is one of the critical variables for obtaining satisfactory calculations in predicting postoperative refraction.

Standard keratometry (K) is frequently applied to estimate corneal power via measuring the anterior corneal surface, while the actual corneal power is contributed by both anterior curvature and posterior curvature[3]. By contrast, TK is a novel parameter that uses telecentric three-zone keratometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography to assess anterior and posterior corneal curvatures.[4, 5]. TK values can be easily obtained since they are built-in into the IOLMaster 700 system. TK theoretically provides more realistic corneal refractive information as it is an additional parameter by considering the corneal thickness and posterior corneal curvature[6].

The classic IOL calculation formulas are developed from K values. Therefore, replacing K with the alternate TK values may introduce overcorrection of refraction due to considering the posterior corneal surface twice. As such, it becomes a point of debate in cataract surgery, questioning whether TK is better than K. Some studies have reported that patients with refractive history benefited from using TK in subsequent cataract surgery[7]. Several studies have investigated the refractive performance of K and TK in traditional cataract surgery and reported that the TK refractive outcomes were slightly more accurate than K[8–10]. A recent study has demonstrated that TK did not significantly improve its prediction accuracy[11]. Taken together, whether TK is better than K in predicting an accurate IOL refractive outcome for cataract surgery needs large-scale real-world data validation.

This study aims to evaluate and compare K versus TK in predicting an accurate refractive outcome in conventional cataract surgery. The secondary aim is to determine the difference among the four formulas for different optical biometrics.

Patients

This research was authorized by the Southwest Hospital of the Army Military Medical University's Institutional Review Board, with ID number (B) KY2021149. The study followed good clinical practice (GCP) principles and conformed to the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration. Following the explanation of the purpose of the research and the range of outcomes that were conceivable, informed permission was collected from each patient.

This retrospective analysis had 449 participants with 449 eyes. A patient pool was comprised of individuals who visited our institution and had uncomplicated phacoemulsification procedures performed by one single ophthalmologist (X.L.) from March 5th, 2021, to December 31st, 2021. We only included the right eye in the analysis if patients underwent bilateral cataract surgery. The inclusion criteria were: 1) preoperative TK values were available from the IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditech, Jena, Germany); 2) neither during nor after the cataract surgery was there a single instance of a complication; 3) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was examined at least four weeks postoperatively; and 4) BCVA was 20/40 or more at least four weeks after the procedure. The exclusion criteria were: 1) prior ocular surgery; 2) ocular injuries or diseases; 3) opacity in the cornea or the vitreous that might impair visual acuity; 4) failure to keep a postoperative follow-up appointment.

Biometry and IOL power calculation methods

IOLMaster 700 was used to measure following optical biometric parameters, such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), K, TK, lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW). Well-trained ophthalmic technicians performed all examinations. The implanted IOL power was preoperatively calculated using the K-based Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula. For the computation of postoperative prediction errors, the Haigis, SRK/TT, and Holladay 2 formulae used K and TK values, respectively. K was applied to Barrett Universal II and TK was used to Barrett TK Universal II for the Barrett formula. All of the aforementioned IOL power calculation formulas were integrated into the IOLMaster 700 built-in software (version 1.88). The following is a list of the IOLs that were used in this study: CT509 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Berlin, AG), SN60WF (Alcon Labs, Fort Worth, TX, USA), and Softec I (Lenstec, Florida, USA). The power of the implanted IOLs was determined by senior cataract expert (X.L.).

Refractive prediction error

The postoperative refractive prediction error (PE) denotes the magnitude of the deviation between the predicted and true refraction of the IOL and was obtained with subtraction as follows: the formula-predicted refraction was subtracted from the actual manifest refraction that was measured four weeks after surgery. The descriptive statistics of PE are depicted as mean prediction error (ME) and standard deviation (SD). To pursue perfection in IOL calculations, we generated the adjusted PE by deducting ME from PE (PE-ME), following the advice proposed by Wang et al. [12]. Based on the adjusted PE, the adjusted ME, the adjusted mean absolute prediction error (MAE), and the adjusted median absolute prediction error (MedAE) were calculated. The percentages of eyes that had adjusted PE within ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D were calculated for each formula. A new approach proposed by Wolfgang Haigis recently, IOL Formula Performance Index (FPI) was adopted to estimate the accuracy of each formula. FPI was based on four parameters: SD of the PE, MedAE, AL Bias, and the percentage coefficient. The calculation method is detailed in a recent review [13], which could be found in the on-demand section of the ESCRS website. The formula is more accurate as the higher FPI score got.

Statistical analysis

All of the data were analyzed statistically using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Excel 2021. (Office 2021, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA). The two-tailed t-test was used for analyzing and comparing data with normal distributions, while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was utilized for analyzing and evaluating data with non-normal distributions. The adjusted MAEs and adjusted MedAEs among different fomulars were analyzed using the Friedman test, respectively. A Bonferroni correction was used to counteract the errors in multiple comparisons. The Cochran Q test was employed to evaluate the percent of eyes within ± 0.5 D of adjusted PE. For pairwise comparison, the post hoc Wilcoxon or McNemar test was employed if a statistically significant difference was detected between formulas. It was determined to have statistical significance if the P-value or adjusted P-value was lower than 0.05.

The eyes of a total of 449 different patients have been included in our investigation. Table 1 provides a summary of the patient's demographic information as well as ocular biometric measurements. The mean value of K was 44.26 D (ranging from 33.21 to 50.90), and the mean value of TK was 44.28 D (ranging from 36.23 to 50.58). Between K and TK, there was not found to be a statistically significant difference (P = 0.2269). All refractive data were calculated with the BUII and BUII_TK, Haigis and Haigis_TK, SRK/T and SRK/T_TK, Holladay2 and Holladay2_TK formulas and detailed displayed in Table 2.

Table 1

Demographics and optical biometric characteristics of patients
Demographics	Mean ± SD	Median (range)
Age (y)	63.84 ± 12.51	65 (13 to 76)
AL (mm)	24.68 ± 2.53	23.69 (20.05 to 33.66)
ACD (mm)	3.16 ± 0.47	3.18 (1.75 to 4.35)
LT (mm)	4.38 ± 0.50	4.40 (2.94 to5.72)
WTW (mm)	11.68 ± 0.45	11.70 (9.30 to 13.10)
Average K (mm)	44.26 ± 1.56	44.31 (33.21 to 50.90)
Average TK (mm)	44.28 ± 1.49	44.31 (36.23 to 50.58)
Preoperative refraction SE (D)	-4.44 ± 6.87	0.00 (-28.00 to 12.75)
Postoperative refraction SE (D)	-0.07 ± 0.49	0.00 (-2.00 to 1.50)
IOL power (D)	16.84 ± 6.48	19.50 (-4.00 to 33.50)
SD = standard deviation; CDVA = corrected distance visual acuity; AL = axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth; LT = lens thickness; K = keratometry; D = diopters; SE = spherical equivalent; IOL = intraocular lens.

Table 2

Performance comparison of different formulas
Formula	FPI	ME	SD	adjusted MAE	adjusted MedAE	Percentage of eyes within adjusted PE (%)
Formula	FPI	ME	SD	adjusted MAE	adjusted MedAE	± 0.25 D	± 0.50 D	± 0.75 D	± 1.00 D	± 2.00 D
BUII	0.070	0.045	0.464	0.350	0.270	46.77	73.94	91.09	95.77	100
BUII _TK	0.067	0.043	0.471	0.362	0.297	44.1	71.49	89.76	95.99	100
P value		0.4127		0.1169	0.2134	0.272	0.338	0.390
Haigis	0.064	0.148	0.511	0.392	0.318	42.09	69.93	84.19	92.87	100
Haigis _TK	0.061	0.174	0.524	0.407	0.324	36.97	66.82	84.19	91.98	99.78
P value		0.0002		0.0479	0.3027	0.410	0.033	0.473
SRK/T	0.060	0.059	0.548	0.421	0.321	35.63	66.15	81.29	92.2	99.78
SRK/T _TK	0.059	0.069	0.551	0.427	0.341	39.87	65.26	82.85	93.32	99.78
P value		0.0042		0.3636	0.9988	0.522	0.915	0.031
H2	0.056	0.121	0.577	0.441	0.354	34.52	63.47	79.73	89.31	99.55
H2 _TK	0.055	0.144	0.568	0.437	0.361	34.3	62.36	79.06	89.09	99.55
P value		0.0002		0.5643	0.5334	0.714	> 0.99	0.566
FPI = formulas performance index; ME = mean error; SD = standard deviation; MAE = mean absolute error; MedAE = median absolute error; PE = prediction error; D = diopter; BUII = Barrett universal II; H2 = Holladay2.

Comparison of the prediction accuracy among formulas using K or TK

To evaluate if TK is better than K for predicting an accurate IOL refractive outcome for cataract surgery, we compared the MEs, MAEs, and the MedAEs in each IOL power calculation formula. The outcomes of postoperative refractive prediction were displayed in Table 2. For all formulas, the MEs exhibited a hyperopia shift. Although the BUII formula using TK had a slightly smaller ME value, there was not a significant change in any of the formulae according to the statistics. The Haigis (P = 0.0002), SRK (P = 0.0042), and Holladay (P = 0.0002) formulas had significantly larger MEs when using TK. Then, in order to reduce the systematic error brought on by employing the mean arithmetic prediction error, PE was altered in line with the strategy used by Wang et al.[12]. Figure 1 depicted the box-and-whisker plot of the adjusted absolute prediction errors and the adjusted MedAE. There was no statistical difference between K-based MAE and TK-based MAE in BUII (P = 0.1169), SRK/T (P = 0.3636), and Holladay2 (P = 0.5643), whereas in Haigi's formula, the MAE calculated by K is higher than that of TK (P = 0.0479). The adjusted MedAEs were not significantly different in all formulas using K and TK.

To gain an understanding of the prediction performance of a certain formula, we determined the proportion of eyes that fell between the ranges of ± 0.25 D, ± 0.50 D, ± 0.75 D, ± 1.00 D, and ± 2.00 D adjusted PE in all formulas (shown in Fig. 2). The figure is ranked from high to low based on the percentage of eyes within ± 0.5 D adjusted PE. Generally speaking, the K-based formulas and the TK-based formulas had a similar percentage of eyes in the bracket within 0.25 D, 0.50 D, and 0.75 D. There are also exceptions: the Haigis formula using K has a greater number of eyes with the prediction error less than ± 0.50 D compared to its TK version (P = 0.033), and the K version of the SRK/TT formula predicts fewer eyes with adjusted PE within ± 0.75 D (P = 0.031). Therefore, TK value-based calculation does not considerably reduce the prediction error for all the aforementioned formulas.

Formula performance with K or TK in different optical dimensions

We next want to examine the formula's performance in different optical dimensions. PE was calculated in all formulas using TK or K with different preoperative AL, ACD, keratometry, and LT measurements (Fig. 3–6).

The smoothed line plot of PE in different AL (Fig. 3) demonstrated that Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay2 significantly varied with a long axial length regardless of using K or TK. In contrast, the BUII formula showed a slight variation in PE. Meanwhile, for both long and short axial lengths, there was no discernible change in PE when applying the K or TK formulas. .

The smoothed line plot of PE in different ACDs (Fig. 4) showed that using K or TK did not significantly alter the PE of each formula in eyes with different ACDs. In a similar vein, the smoothed diagram of PE varied with keratometry or LT (Fig. 5, 6) demonstrated that no discernible difference could be found in the comparison of all of the TK formulas to the K formula.

The Haigis formula was adversely affected by eyes with long anterior chamber depth, steep keratometry, and thick lenses. The SRK/T and Holladay2 formulas had poor prediction rates in eyes with the relatively shallower anterior chamber. Holladay2's prediction error increased significantly when applied to eyes with very thin lenses. BUII appeared to show the most minor variation among all the formulas measured by PE with different AL, ACD, keratometry, and LT.

Performance comparison of different formulas

We finally assessed how well four distinct IOL power calculation formulas performed. After the adjusted MedAEs of each formula were calculated, a considerable disparity was discovered among the formulae (P < 0.0001). After multiple comparisons with the Bonferroni method, post hoc analysis revealed that the MedAE calculated using the BUII method was markedly smaller than that calculated using any of the other formulas. Consistently, the results of the Cochran's Q test indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between the percentage of eyes that were within ± 0.50 D adjusted PE. (P < 0.0001). BUII, BUIITK, and Haigis were, in that order, the three best algorithms for determining the number of eyes that had a PE that was within 0.50 D.

FPI sorted the accuracy of different formulas from high to low, and the calculation of the formula is more reliable when the FPI scores higher. Not surprisingly, the BUII formula ranked number one. Moreover, all K formulas had a higher FPI than those TK formulas (Table 2), which suggests TK is not better than standard K for predicting an accurate IOL refractive outcome for cataract surgery.

In this study, we evaluated 449 eyes and showed that the prediction accuracy of all TK formulas was similar to standard K for monofocal IOL implantation cataract surgery. Meanwhile, the analysis of the refractive prediction outcomes in different optic dimensions suggests that TK did not come up with better refractive outcomes than using K.

The application of TK has advantages over standard K in cataract surgery after laser vision correction (LVC) surgery. One of the possible reasons for this may be that the LVC procedure changes the topographic status of the cornea, causing a deviation in the estimation of the corneal refractive rate from the anterior keratometry. The superiority of utilizing TK in cataract surgery following laser refractive surgery is well-established in previous studies. Yeo et al.[14] compared K versus TK data from IOLMaster 700 in eyes with laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy history and found the mean TK (38.15 D, ranging from 33.71 to 42.18 D) was lower than the mean K (39.25 D, ranging from34.99 to 42.83 D). Wang et al.[15] analyzed eyes that had undergone corneal refractive surgery previously; They found that the Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK performed better in the myopic LASIK/PRK group, which may be due to the fact that the average TK value was significantly different from that of the K. Consistently, according to the study of Lawless et al. [16], average TK values were shown to be flatter than K values for individuals with a history of myopia and steeper for patients with a history of hyperopia. However, without a history of laser surgery, the superiority of TK in the IOL calculation remains unproven in the real world. In this study, we aim to explore whether TK could achieve a better predictive outcome in conventional cataract surgery and the possibility of replacing K with TK in IOL power calculation formulas.

Contrary to eyes that have experienced corneal laser procedure, in routine eyes, TK is compatible with keratometry data[17]. Our data showed no significant difference between the average value of K (44.26D) and TK (44.28D). This evidence supports the notion that the measurement method, standard keratometry or total keratometry, has no significant effect on the prediction accuracy of each formula. As reported by Sirvannaboon et al.[9], no statistically significant differences in MAEs and MedAEs were seen between the K and TK groups. Tessler et al.[11] compared the prediction accuracy of eleven different current formulae employing the K and TK; When comparing the predictive efficacy of the two formula variations, there was no discernible difference. A recent study[18] reported that TK downgraded the formula's performance, especially in medium AL, medium anterior K, and flat K subgroups. We, along with previous reports, showed that TK did not increase the postoperative refractive outcomes in all investigated formulas.

Assessing the proportion of eyes inside ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 0.75D adjusted PE, we noticed that the K and TK groups had comparable percentages in the majority of distributions. The highest proportion of eyes that achieved the refractive outcomes in all the brackets was the ones that used the BUII formula. This result is consistent with earlier discoveries. Chung et al.[19] reported 89.9%, 82.5%, 85.5%, and 85.5% of eyes achieved the refractive outcomes when applying K to the BUII, Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay 2 formulas for multifocal IOLs, and 86.6%, 82.1%, 82.3%, and 83.4% when applying TK to the same formulas. The BUII formula is specifically designed for TK, so it is not surprising that TK can achieve the same accuracy as K. Since other formulas are developed on standard K, using TK in these formulas yield unfavorable outcomes in our study. This non-intuitive downgradation may be due to the inadaptability of the previous generation formulas or the deviation of IOL power calculation in some cases of abnormal eyes.

Furthermore, the analysis of different optical parameters showed that the difference in prediction error between K and TK formulas was insignificant regardless of AL, ACD, keratometry, and LT. Our results indicated that the extreme eye parameters would lead to a decreased prediction accuracy for all formulas. This means the formula per se brought up the lower PE when encountering the outlier data rather than the different measurement inputs. In a large multicenter retrospective study, Melles et al.[20] reported that the new generation of formulas, including BUII, is more reliable for predicting the IOP power for abnormal eyes. Our study is in agreement with this conclusion. We also found that both BUII_K and BUII_TK showed the best formula performance, as reflected by a better FPI, lower absolute PE, and higher proportions of eyes achieving low PE.

Corneal diopter measured by standard K is a calculated value by measuring the anterior corneal surface information. In reality, the corneal diopter is affected by the curvature of the anterior surface, the curvature of the posterior surface, and the thickness of the cornea[3]. In theory, TK should be more helpful for determining the IOL power when the cataract surgeon designs the surgical strategy because it is more likely to reflect the actual diopter of the cornea than anterior K. But our real-world study demonstrates that TK is not better than standard K for calculating IOL power in monofocal IOL implantation cataract surgery. One possible reason is that most of the current formulas are not specifically developed for TK. The BUII formula is an exception and explains precisely why the BUII and the BUIITK have homogeneous degree of accuracy. Despite the fact that TK is currently unable to substitute for Kin IOL power calculation formulas, if the SS-OCT device becomes more prevalent in the future, TK's application potential will increase because of its broader applicability.

The limitations of our study are a retrospective case series design, differences in IOL, and no constant IOL optimization to balance ME to zero to eliminate system error. Our investigation adhered to all of the protocols that were provided by Hoffer et al.[21] for research into the precision of IOL formulas. Whether the TK formulas have a better postoperative refractive error in patients with super-long axial length needs further investigation.

The application of TK did not provide extra optimization in the prediction precision of the BUII, Haigis, SRK/T, and Holladay2 formulas in cataract surgery with monofocal IOL implantation. The BUII formula gives the most accurate results for refractive prediction among the four investigated formulas.

TK: Total Keratometry; K: Keratometry; IOL: Intraocular Lens; BUII: Barrett Universal II; BCVA: Best-Corrected Visual Acuity; AL: Axial Length; ACD: Anterior Chamber Depth; LT: Lens Thickness; PE: Predicted Error; MAE: Mean Absolute prediction Error; MedAE: Median Absolute prediction Error; SD: Standard Deviation; FPI: Formula Performance Index.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Yanji Yu and Jun Chen for assistance in collecting clinical data and Lin Chen for support in revising the English language.

Authors’ contributions

ZH wrote the manuscript and prepare all the figures. ZH, XC, and BL collected clinical data. XC and ZH performed data curation, statistical analysis. XL and YL designed the study and conducted the writing. XL and YL contributed equally as corresponding authors.All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (81770972) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (81970843).

Availability of data and materials

On reasonable request, the corresponding author will provide access to the datasets used and/or analyzed during this study.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki were adhered to during the course of this research. The Ethics Committee of the Southwest Hospital of the Army Medical University authorized permission for this retrospective study and granted an exemption from the requirement of informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author details

1 Southwest Hospital/Southwest Eye Hospital, Third Military Medical University (Amy Medical University), Chongqing 400038, China. 2 Key Lab of Visual Damage and Regeneration & Restoration, Chongqing 400038, China.

Hashemi H, Pakzad R, Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, Pakbin M, Ramin S, Khabazkhoob M: Global and regional prevalence of age-related cataract: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. Eye (Lond) 2020, 34(8):1357-1370.
Lundstrom M, Dickman M, Henry Y, Manning S, Rosen P, Tassignon MJ, Young D, Stenevi U: Risk factors for refractive error after cataract surgery: Analysis of 282 811 cataract extractions reported to the European Registry of Quality Outcomes for cataract and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018, 44(4):447-452.
Olsen T: On the calculation of power from curvature of the cornea. Br J Ophthalmol 1986, 70(2):152-154.
LaHood BR, Goggin M: Measurement of Posterior Corneal Astigmatism by the IOLMaster 700. J Refract Surg 2018, 34(5):331-336.
Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG: Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 2016, 100(9):1201-1205.
Tonn B, Klaproth OK, Kohnen T: Anterior surface-based keratometry compared with Scheimpflug tomography-based total corneal astigmatism. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014, 56(1):291-298.
Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Barboni P: Intraocular lens power calculation using a Placido disk-Scheimpflug tomographer in eyes that had previous myopic corneal excimer laser surgery. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2018, 44(8):935-941.
Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Lomoriello DS, Ducoli P: Simulated Keratometry Versus Total Corneal Power by Ray Tracing: A Comparison in Prediction Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power. Cornea 2017, 36(11):1368-1372.
Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C: Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2019, 257(12):2677-2682.
Saad E, Shammas MC, Shammas HJ: Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 2013, 156(3):460-467 e462.
Tsessler M, Cohen S, Wang L, Koch DD, Zadok D, Abulafia A: Evaluating the prediction accuracy of the Hill-RBF 3.0 formula using a heteroscedastic statistical method. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2022, 48(1):37-43.
Wang L, Koch DD, Hill W, Abulafia A: Pursuing perfection in intraocular lens calculations: III. Criteria for analyzing outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017, 43(8):999-1002.
Hoffer KJ, Savini G: Update on Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Study Protocols: The Better Way to Design and Report Clinical Trials. Ophthalmology 2021, 128(11):e115-e120.
Yeo TK, Heng WJ, Pek D, Wong J, Fam HB: Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery. Eye (Lond) 2021, 35(6):1705-1711.
Wang L, Spektor T, de Souza RG, Koch DD: Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2019, 45(10):1416-1421.
Lawless M, Jiang JY, Hodge C, Sutton G, Roberts TV, Barrett G: Total keratometry in intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2020, 48(6):749-756.
Haigis W SW, Kunert K, Blum M: Total keratometric power (TKP) derived from corneal front and back surfaces using a full eye-length SS-OCT scan biometer prototype in comparison to automated keratometry. In: the XXXII Congress of the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. London, United Kingdom; 2014.
Danjo Y, Ohji R, Maeno S: Lower refractive prediction accuracy of total keratometry using intraocular lens formulas loaded onto a swept-source optical biometer. Graefe's Archive For Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology = Albrecht Von Graefes Archiv Fur Klinische Und Experimentelle Ophthalmologie 2022.
Lee H, Chung JL, Kim YJ, Kim JY, Tchah H: Prediction accuracy of standard and total keratometry by swept-source optical biometer for multifocal intraocular lens power calculation. Sci Rep 2021, 11(1):4794.
Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ: Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Calculation Formulas. Ophthalmology 2018, 125(2):169-178.
Hoffer KJ, Aramberri J, Haigis W, Olsen T, Savini G, Shammas HJ, Bentow S: Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy. Am J Ophthalmol 2015, 160(3):403-405 e401.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 07 Aug, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Ophthalmology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
11 May, 2023
Reviews received at journal
09 May, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
08 May, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
18 Apr, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
18 Apr, 2023
Editor invited by journal
10 Mar, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
10 Mar, 2023
First submitted to journal
08 Feb, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Total keratometry is not better than standard keratometry: An IOL refractive prediction outcome evaluation for cataract surgery

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Patients

Biometry and IOL power calculation methods

Refractive prediction error

Statistical analysis

Results

Comparison of the prediction accuracy among formulas using K or TK

Formula performance with K or TK in different optical dimensions

Performance comparison of different formulas

Discussion

Conclusion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1