 |
|
Clinical and Theoretical Results of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation for Cataract Surgery After Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia
Monica T. P. Odenthal, MD;
Cathrien A. Eggink, MD;
Gerrit Melles, MD, PhD;
Jan H. Pameyer, MD;
Annette J. M. Geerards, MD;
W. Houdijn Beekhuis, MD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:431-438.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objectives To describe the refractive results of cataract surgery after photorefractive
keratectomy (PRK) for patients with myopia, and to find a more accurate method
to predict intraocular lens (IOL) power in these cases.
Design Nonrandomized, retrospective clinical study.
Patients and Methods Nine patients (15 eyes) who underwent cataract surgery after prior PRK
to correct myopia were identified. The medical records of both the laser and
cataract surgery centers were reviewed.
Main Outcome Measures Eight different keratometric values (K values; measured or calculated)
were entered into 3 different IOL calculation formulas: SRK/T, Holladay 1,
and Hoffer Q. The actual biometry and IOL parameters were used to predict
postoperative refraction, which was compared with the actual refractive outcome.
Also, the relative underestimation of the refractive change in corneal dioptric
power by keratometry after PRK was calculated.
Results In 7 of 15 eyes, IOL exchange or piggybacking was performed because
of hyperopia. Retrospectively, the most accurate K value for IOL calculation
was found to be the pre-PRK K value corrected by the spectacle plane change
in refraction. Use of the Hoffer Q formula would have avoided postoperative
hyperopia in more cases than the other formulas. The mean underestimation
of the change in corneal power after PRK varied from 42% to 74%, depending
on the method of calculation.
Conclusion The predictability of IOL calculation for cataract surgery after PRK
can be improved by using a corrected, refraction-derived K value instead of
the measured, preoperative K value.
INTRODUCTION
EXCIMER LASER photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) is widely used as a
safe and predictable method to correct myopia. With time, an increasing number
of patients with cataract will have undergone PRK or another method of corneal
refractive surgery (eg, laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis [LASIK]).
Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculated after corneal refractive surgery
may be inaccurate and can lead to postoperative refractive surprises.1-2 Inaccurate postoperative refractions
have been reported in eyes that have undergone cataract extraction after radial
keratotomy, PRK, and LASIK.3-11
Recently, a number of theoretical studies that explain the causes of this
problem and suggest ways to solve it have been published.12-14
However, clinical data on the actual outcomes of different methods of IOL
calculation to improve the outcome of cataract surgery after previous refractive
surgery are largely lacking; only case histories and small series of patients
have been published thus far.
We analyzed 9 patients (15 eyes) who underwent cataract extraction after
PRK surgery to correct myopia. Retrospectively, 8 different methods of measuring
or calculating corneal keratometric values (K values) and 3 different standard
IOL calculation formulas were used to calculate the difference between the
expected refraction and the actual refraction after cataract extraction and
IOL implantation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
PATIENTS AND CLINICAL DATA
All members of the Dutch Association for Refractive Surgeons were asked
to provide data from patients who had undergone PRK to correct myopia, followed
by cataract extraction and implantation of an IOL. The medical records from
the laser surgery center and the cataract surgery center were reviewed for
all patients. All patients had previously provided written, informed consent,
which included assenting to the use of medical information for scientific
purposes if their identities were protected.
The following data were collected, if available: best-corrected visual
acuity, subjective refraction, keratometer readings, and topographic values.
These data were acquired from preoperative and postoperative (1-year follow-up)
examinations concerning PRK and before and after cataract extraction.
The following IOL calculation data were acquired: the axial length,
the formula or method used for IOL calculation or estimation by the cataract
surgeon, the K value used in the formula, and the method of measuring or calculating
the K value. Also, the A constant of the IOL, provided
by the manufacturer for placement in the bag or the sulcus, the dioptric power
of the IOL, and the position of the IOL in the eye (in the bag or the ciliary
sulcus) were noted. These parameters were also acquired for the second IOL,
in case an exchange took place.
METHODS
To calculate predicted refractive outcomes and compare them with the
actual clinical data, 8 different methods of measuring or calculating the
K value after refractive surgery by PRK were used (Figure 1). These measured or calculated values (were entered into
each of 3 formulas, together with the lenspower and the A constant of the used IOL and the axial length, SRK/T, Holladay 1,
and Hoffer Q) to obtain a prediction of refractive outcome in each case. A
commercially available computer program was used to perform these calculations
(Hoffer Programs; EyeLab Inc, Santa Monica, Calif).
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Eight methods of measuring or
calculating the keratometric (K) value.
|
|
|
The difference between the predicted refraction and the actual postoperative
refraction gives an indication of the error in refraction (hyperopic, if positive;
myopic, if negative), when each of the 24 specific combinations of the used
K value and formula would have been used. This difference was calculated for
each eye, K value, and formula and averaged for all eyes to compare the accuracy
of the different K values in each formula.
When the achieved refraction, the axial length, the power, and the A constant of the IOL are all known variables after cataract
extraction and IOL calculation, the only missing parameter in the equation
is the K value. This theoretical K value (K-exact), reflects the "real" refractive
power of the cornea and produces the power of the implanted IOL to achieve
the actual refractive outcome when entered in the IOL calculation formula.
K-exact was calculated for each eye, with each of the 3 IOL calculation formulas,
by repeatedly entering K values into the computer program for each formula
until the entered K value predicted the actual postoperative refraction using
the implanted IOL (Figure 2). Subtraction
of K-exact from the average K value measured before PRK (K[prePRK]) produces
the exact (calculated) keratometric change induced by PRK,  K(calc).
This value may be compared with the measured keratometric change (K[meas]
= K[prePRK] - K[preCat]). The factor F-exact (K[calc] / K[meas])
measures the relative underestimation of the actual change in corneal curvature,
measured by keratometry. Because this factor was calculated for the 3 IOL
calculation formulas, we obtained 3 calculated factors, 1 for each formula:
F-exact(SRK), F-exact(Holladay), and F-exact(Hoffer).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Calculation of factors.
|
|
|
Another method for calculating the underestimation of keratometric change
due to PRK is to divide the achieved subjective refractive change at the corneal
plane (SE[corn]) by the measured change (K[meas]). Theoretically,
this value should be 1.114 (or 11.4%) because only the front surface of the
cornea is changed by PRK, and regular keratometry and topography use a keratometric
index of 1.3375 for front and back curvature of the cornea combined, instead
of the refractive index of the front corneal surface, air to corneal stroma,
which is 1.376.15-17
We define this factor (F-index) as SE(corn) / K(meas).
RESULTS
CLINICAL RESULTS
We identified a group of 9 patients (15 eyes) who underwent PRK to correct
myopia, followed by cataract extraction and implantation of an IOL. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the
6 male and 3 female patients. The patients ranged in age from 29 to 66 years
(mean age, 49.8 years) at the time of PRK. The mean ± SD preoperative
spherical equivalent (SE) of the subjective refraction was –8.2 ±
1.9 diopters (D) (range, –6 D to –12 D). The intended correction
by PRK ranged from 6 D to 10 D (mean, 8.2 D). The exact intended correction
of 1 patient (patient 6) who underwent PRK in another country was unknown.
In 2 eyes, an enhancement procedure was performed to correct residual myopia
by retreatment with PRK. Follow-up data from 1 year after refractive surgery
or retreatment was available in 13 eyes; patient 7 did not return for the
1-year follow-up visit, and patient 2 had cataract surgery 5 months after
PRK. For patient 2, we used measurements from this last PRK follow-up visit
for calculations.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Patient Characteristics*
|
|
|
The mean interval between PRK (or retreatment, in 2 eyes) and cataract
extraction was 2 years 9 months (range, 5 months to 5 years 4 months). All
15 eyes showed nuclear cataract, and 6 eyes also showed cortical or posterior
subcapsular opacities.
Table 2 presents the preoperative
and postoperative data concerning cataract extraction and IOL implantation
for all 15 eyes. Seven different ophthalmologists performed the operations.
Each cataract surgeon used the standard biometric measurements and IOL calculation
formula of that specific cataract surgery center. Therefore, several formulas
were used (not shown). In 14 eyes, the cataract extraction was performed by
phacoemulsification; in 1 eye, a manual extracapsular cataract extraction
technique was used. No intraoperative or postoperative complications, such
as a ruptured capsule, vitreous loss, or endophthalmitis, occurred.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Clinical Data Regarding Cataract Extraction*
|
|
|
In 6 eyes, the K value measured before cataract extraction and after
PRK, K(preCat), was used to calculate the power of the IOL before cataract
surgery (conventional method). These 6 eyes achieved hyperopic postoperative
refraction ranging from +1 D to +6 D (mean, +3.3 D; SE). In 4 of these 6 eyes,
exchange of the IOL took place, and, in 1 eye, a second IOL was added (piggyback).
In the other 9 eyes, different methods were used to determine the power
of the IOL. An estimation of IOL power by rule of thumb ("standard IOL method")
was used in 2 eyes of 1 patient. The rule of thumb can be described as follows:
a normal emmetropic eye will usually need an IOL with an A constant of 118.0 and a power of 21 D, so in an eye that achieved
emmetropia after PRK, an IOL of 21 D was used. A correction was made for residual
myopia after PRK.
In 2 eyes, a K value was estimated, using different methods of calculation
and guesswork, by subtracting the achieved refraction at the corneal and/or
spectacle plane from the original K value and by correcting the K value by
11.4% and averaging these calculated K values.
In 2 eyes, automated refraction was performed during the operation after
the IOL implantation, using a handheld autorefractometer (Retinomax; Nikon,
Melville, NY). In these 2 eyes, intraoperative exchange of the IOL took place.
In the remaining 3 eyes, calculation or estimation of the power of the IOL
was based on the refractive outcome in the contralateral eye.
The IOL exchange was performed intraoperatively in 2 eyes. In the other
5 eyes in which IOL exchange was performed or an IOL was added, the power
of the second IOL was estimated using the original IOL power and the residual
subjective refractive error. In these eyes, the interval between cataract
surgery and subsequent surgery varied from 2 to 8 months (mean, 6 months).
In 3 eyes, the IOL was again placed in the capsular bag: in 1 eye, in the
ciliary sulcus and, in 1 eye, a second IOL was placed in the ciliary sulcus
(piggyback).
Twelve (80%) of 15 eyes achieved a final postoperative refraction (SE)
within 1 D of emmetropia, including 7 eyes after IOL exchange or adding an
IOL. The remaining 3 eyes achieved a final SE of –1.25 D or –1.5
D. In all eyes in which cataract surgery was performed after (often elaborate)
discussions and calculations or reasoned estimation of the appropriate K value,
an acceptable postoperative refraction was reached without the need for IOL
exchange. No late postoperative complications, such as regression, corneal
haze formation, instability of refraction, or other problems, were noted,
apart from posterior capsule opacification.
THEORETICAL RESULTS
Table 3 presents the calculations
of the difference between the actual (achieved, subjective manifest) refraction
(SE) and the calculated expected refraction (SE). The calculated expected
refraction was computed using the 3 IOL calculation formulas and 8 ways of
measuring and calculating the K value for each eye. For each calculation,
a number of eyes had to be excluded because keratometric values, corneal topography,
and/or refraction data were incomplete. For patient 9, the right eye was excluded
because of the addition (piggybacking) of another lens instead of IOL exchange,
which made retrospective calculations using the power of the implanted IOL
impossible. In 3 patients (4 eyes), the refractive change measured 1 year
after PRK could not reliably be used to calculate a corrected K value. This
was caused by a decline in visual acuity due to cataract and/or a myopic change
in refraction due to nuclear sclerosis (patient 2, left eye; patient 3, both
eyes; and patient 4, right eye).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Difference Between Actual (Achieved) Refraction After Final
IOL Implantation and Predicted Refraction*
|
|
|
A positive mean calculated difference between achieved and predicted
refraction indicates that the actual refraction was more hyperopic than was
predicted (Table 3). For example,
for regular keratometer readings after PRK combined with the SRK/T formula,
the mean ± SD achieved refraction in 13 eyes is 2.8 D ± 2.0
D more hyperopic than this combination of K value and IOL formula predicts.
All 3 keratometric measurements based on actual preoperative measurements
(K[preCat], SimK[preCat], and MinK[preCat]) before cataract extraction and
after PRK yield a considerable positive mean difference with a wide range.
This is consistent with our clinical finding of unexpected hyperopia after
"conventional" keratometric measurements and IOL calculation (Table 2). Keratometric readings taken before PRK and corrected by
the change in refraction after PRK (K[prePRK] - SE[spec], K[prePRK] - SE[corn],
SimK[prePRK] - SE[spec], and SimK[prePRK] - SE[corn])
yield more accurate findings. The K values in this series of eyes that predict
the actual achieved refraction most accurately are the values derived by correcting
the K values measured before PRK, either manual or automated, with the change
in refraction at the spectacle plane (K[prePRK] - SE[spec]).
Also, the range in the difference between actual and expected refraction is
smaller when refractive change–corrected original keratometer readings
are used instead of uncorrected keratometric or topographic measurements after
PRK or instead of the measured keratometric change corrected by the theoretical
factor of 1.114.
Table 4 shows the number
and percentage of eyes with an achieved refraction after cataract surgery
within 1 D of predicted refraction for the actual implanted IOL, using the
8 keratometric methods and 3 different IOL calculation formulas. From Table 4, we conclude that the IOL calculation
is less predictable after PRK than in the normal situation, even after correcting
the K value, because the maximal percentage is only 70%. Using uncorrected
keratometric or topographic values (K[preCat], SimK[preCat], or MinK[preCat])
will result in a high percentage of cases with a postoperative refractive
error of more than 1 D. Using K(prePRK) - SE(spec) in any of
the 3 formulas resulted in the highest percentage of eyes within 1 D of the
predicted refraction. A clear preference for one IOL calculation formula cannot
be made from this table.
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Eyes With a Predicted Refraction Within 1 D of Achieved Postcataract
Refraction*
|
|
|
Table 5 shows the number
and percentage of eyes with an achieved refraction less than 0.5 D more hyperopic
than was predicted, using different keratometric values and IOL calculation
formulas. We can retrospectively conclude that use of the Hoffer Q formula,
combined with a K value derived from the original K value minus the refractive
change due to PRK (K[prePRK] - SE[spec], SimK[prePRK] - SE[spec],
K[prePRK] - SE[corn], or SimK[prePRK] - SE[corn])
would have resulted in the fewest instances of unexpected hyperopia in this
group of patients.
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Eyes With an Achieved Refraction Less Than 0.5 D More Hyperopic
Than Predicted*
|
|
|
The factor measuring the "real" relative underestimation of the change
in the corneal dioptric power following PRK, F-exact, could be calculated
for 11 eyes. One eye with 2 IOLs was excluded from this calculation, and,
in 3 eyes, the data were insufficient to perform this calculation. This factor,
calculated by dividing the calculated "exact" change (K[calc] = K[preCat] -
K-exact) by the measured change (K[meas] = K[prePRK] - K[preCat]),
was found to have a mean of 1.74 for the SRK/T formula, 1.63 for the Holladay
1 formula, and 1.42 for the Hoffer Q formula.
F-index, defined as SE[corn] /K[meas], should theoretically
be 1.114 because only the front surface of the cornea is changed by PRK, and
regular keratometric and topographic measurements use a keratometric index
of 1.3375 for front and back curvature of the cornea combined, instead of
the refractive index of the front corneal surface, air to corneal stroma,
which is 1.376.15-17
This factor could be calculated for 10 eyes and had a mean ± SD of
1.44 ± 0.50 (range, 0.68-2.16). The results of the calculation of the
different factors, indicating the amount of underestimation of corneal power
change measured by keratometry after PRK, are summarized in Table 6. No correlation between these factors and diopters of refractive
change by PRK, or the change in keratometric readings before and after PRK,
could be found.
|
|
|
|
Table 6. Factors Indicating the Amount of Underestimation by Regular
Keratometry in Corneal Refractive Power Change After PRK*
|
|
|
COMMENT
After PRK for myopia, the change in the refractive status of the eye
is not accurately reflected in the change in the dioptric power of the cornea
as measured by conventional keratometry. Errors in refractive status after
cataract extraction following excimer laser surgery have been reported in
a few case reports and case series.6-11
In these reports, underestimation of the IOL power needed to achieve emmetropia
caused erroneous hyperopic outcomes. In this study, too, use of uncorrected
keratometric values, measured after PRK and before cataract extraction to
calculate the power of the IOL, appeared to be inappropriate. This resulted
in hyperopia, necessitating IOL exchange. In our study, retrospective calculations
showed that a corrected K value, derived by subtracting the achieved change
in refraction at the spectacle plane 1 year after PRK from the K value of
the cornea measured before PRK, is a more appropriate K value to use in IOL
calculation formulas after PRK. This is in accordance with a clinical paper
recently published on the results in a small series of patients with cataract
extraction after LASIK11 and confirms many
of the theoretical considerations published earlier on this subject.
After PRK, the inaccuracy of conventional keratometric and corneal topographic
measurements to represent the "true" refractive corneal power is the main
obstacle to accurate IOL prediction. Several studies discuss the discrepancy
between keratometric and refractive change after refractive surgery.15, 18-23
Hersh and Schwartz-Goldstein18 found that the
topography unit tended to overestimate refractive change for corrections of
5 D or less and found an underestimation of changes of more than 5 D. Maeda
et al19 compared keratometry-style readings
with average corneal power, defined as the average of all measurements taken
by computer topography within the entrance pupil. The authors found that the
difference between the 2 parameters in eyes treated by PRK differed significantly
from normal eyes. More important, Mandell15
argued that only the change induced by PRK in the front surface of the cornea
should be considered; therefore the refractive index of corneal stroma (ie,
1.376) should be used instead of the currently used index of 1.3375 for front
and back curvature combined.
Several authors therefore advocate using a correcting factor of 1.114,
or adding 11.4% to the difference in regular or computerized keratometer readings
that are taken with an instrument using the keratometer index of 1.3375 before
and after PRK.15-17
In our study, we found "correcting factors" of 1.42 to 1.74, depending on
the method of calculation, which indicates a mean underestimation of the change
in K value after PRK of at least 42%, instead of 11.4%.
Seitz et al22 performed a study on 31
eyes before and after PRK for myopia of 1.5 D to 8 D (mean ± SD, 5.4
D ± 1.9 D). The authors compared keratometric and topographic measurements
after PRK with corrected post-PRK K values. The relative flattening of the
cornea appeared to be underestimated by 14% to 30% (mean, 24%) depending on
the method of calculation. The measured corneal power after PRK was significantly
greater than the calculated corneal power. Powers of IOLs were calculated
using corrected K values in the SRK/T and Haigis formulas. The calculated
corneal power using the SE change of refraction at the corneal plane was suggested
to be most appropriate on theoretical grounds. Corneal power overestimation
and IOL power underestimation correlated significantly with the SE change
after PRK and with intended ablation depth. These calculations were based
on the comparison of changes in the corneal curvature before and after PRK,
calculating theoretical differences in IOL power, and not on actual clinical
data after cataract extraction. The average preoperative refraction prior
to PRK in our study is –8.2 D. This is in contrast with the eyes studied
by Seitz et al,22 in which the mean preoperative
refraction was –5.4 D. These authors found a correlation between the
corneal power overestimation and the SE change induced by PRK. Considering
the relationship between the amount of myopia that was corrected and the relative
underestimation, it can be predicted that the underestimation will be even
larger after LASIK procedures for high myopia. In our study group, however,
we did not find this correlation. More research is needed in this area.
Two tentative conclusions can be drawn. Apparently, the factor of 11.4%
that was initially proposed to correct the keratometric change induced by
PRK is too low. Second, because of the large range in relative underestimation
of corneal power change, the use of a fixed correcting factor (eg, 1.114,
1.42, or 1.74) for the measured keratometric change after PRK will probably
result in an equally large range of refractive outcomes after cataract surgery
and is therefore not advocated. However, larger prospective studies are needed
to confirm our conclusions.
In third-generation formulas, such as Holladay 1 and 2, Hoffer Q, and
SRK/T, the keratometric value is used to estimate the postoperative anterior
chamber depth or effective lens position (ELP) of the IOL. However, a patient
with a given K value who has never had refractive surgery probably has a different
ELP than a patient with the same (measured or calculated) K value after laser
vision correction. One should be aware that in calculating a correcting factor
for the keratometric change using one of these formulas, a certain amount
of circular reasoning may be present because these formulas use the K value
to estimate the ELP. Perhaps the better outcomes using spectacle instead of
corneal plane refraction in this study simply reflect the fact that assumptions
in these formulas about the relationship between ELP and keratometric measurements
in normal eyes are no longer valid in postrefractive surgery eyes. In the
Holladay 2 formula, the ELP is further estimated by taking into account the
preoperative white-to-white measurement, anterior chamber depth, and lens
thickness. In our retrospective study, these parameters were not available,
and, therefore, we could not use this formula. We do recommend use of the
Holladay 2 formula in further studies because it may be more accurate in "nonstandard"
situations, such as in eyes after refractive surgery.
In our study, with regard to the different IOL calculation formulas,
no consistently better or worse formula could be identified to achieve a refraction
within 1 D of the predicted refraction. To avoid large unexpected refractive
errors, the formula used seems less important than the method of calculating
the appropriate K value. However, to avoid postoperative hyperopia, the Hoffer
Q formula seems to be superior to the SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas. This
is important because postoperative hyperopia will be even less tolerated than
postoperative residual myopia.
This study has limitations. Although, to our knowledge, the number of
eyes presented in this study is the largest series thus far, it is still a
low number, and, from most patients, both eyes were included. Statistics were
not applied because of these 2 factors. Other methods to determine the correct
refractive corneal power after PRK, such as the contact lens over refraction
method24 or methods using the Stiles-Crawford
effect20 or ray-tracing techniques, were not
employed in this study and may prove superior. Zeh and Koch25
showed that in a study group of normal eyes, the method of contact lens overrefraction
is less accurate when visual acuity is decreased due to cataract. Even so,
for patients whose original pre-PRK values have been lost over time, this
method may well prove its value in the future.
Intraoperative autorefractometry gave satisfactory outcomes in 2 eyes
in this study. The clinical applicability of this method may be limited because
autorefractometry is less reliable after PRK than in normal eyes.23 This is also the case after LASIK.26
Other methods used to achieve an acceptable refractive outcome in several
difficult situations (cataract surgery after radial keratotomy or after penetrating
keratoplasty) have been described.27-30
In our series, IOL exchange and adding a piggyback IOL were successfully performed
without serious complications.
Using actual clinical refractive outcomes after cataract extraction
following PRK, we studied which method of K value calculation was most suitable
to use in IOL power calcuation formulas. In any case, correcting the measured
K value with the refractive change after PRK increased accuracy and decreased
the chance of unexpected hyperopia. We found the spectacle plane/refractive
change–corrected K values to be most accurate. The Hoffer Q formula
was superior to the SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas in avoiding a large hyperopic
outcome. We must, however, be aware that considerable ranges in outcome occur
and larger numbers of patients are needed before a definite answer can be
given to the question of which method of IOL calculation is best after prior
PRK.
Based on this study and our clinical experience, we offer the following
recommendations:
- Patients should be informed that they need to mention prior corneal
refractive surgery to their ophthalmologist when cataract surgery is proposed.
- Patients should be given a "wallet card" with their K values and
spectacle refraction measured prior to PRK and 1 year after PRK. Axial length
measurements could also be included to make it easier to differentiate in
the future among corneal regression, an increase in myopia due to lenticular
sclerosis, and an increase in axial length.
- In case of a significant change in refraction after PRK, every
attempt should be made to differentiate between myopic change due to (late)
regression of the induced corneal change after PRK, an increase in axial length,
or nuclear cataract, and to document this appropriately.
- To calculate the appropriate IOL for implantation, measured K
values after PRK overestimate corneal power. We recommend replacing these
measured K values with a value obtained by correcting the K value measured
before PRK with the change in refraction (SE) due to PRK at the spectacle
plane. This should be measured about 1 year after PRK and before the development
of cataract and/or an increase in myopia due to lenticular sclerosis.
- Use of the Hoffer Q formula will probably result in less unexpected
hyperopia.
- Patients who are eligible for cataract surgery after PRK should
be informed that, thus far, the methods used to calculate IOL power are not
fully adapted to the situation after PRK and an IOL exchange or other additional
intervention may be necessary to achieve emmetropia.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Submitted for publication December 13, 1999; final revision received
August 9, 2001; accepted November 16, 2001.
This study was supported in part by the Van Loenen Martinet Cornea Fellowship,
Rotterdam Eye Hospital, Rotterdam the Netherlands (Dr Odenthal).
This study was presented in part as a poster at the Association for
Research in Vision and Ophthalmology meeting, Ft Lauderdale, Fla, April 21-26,
1995.
We thank G. J. van Marle for his advice regarding the keratometer index
and corneal refractive power and the members of the Dutch Association for
Refractive Surgeons, especially G. M. Smith, MD, and R. Kramer, MD, for sharing
their patient data.
Corresponding author and reprints: Monica T. P. Odenthal, MD, Department
of Ophthalmology, G2-217, Academic Medical Center, PO Box 22700, 1100 DE Amsterdam,
the Netherlands (e-mail: m.t.odenthal{at}amc.uva.nl).
From the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, and the
Diaconessenhuis, Leiden, the Netherlands (Dr Odenthal); the Rotterdam Eye
Hospital, Rotterdam (Drs Odenthal, Pameyer, Geerards, and Beekhuis); the University
Hospital St Radboud, Nijmegen (Dr Eggink); and the Netherlands Institute for
Innovative Ocular Surgery, Rotterdam (Dr Melles).
REFERENCES
| |
1. McDonnell PJ. Can we avoid an epidemic of refractive "surprises" after cataract surgery? Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:542-543.
PUBMED
2. Pepose JS, Lim-Bon-Siong R, Mardelli P. Future shock: the long-term consequences of refractive surgery. Br J Ophthalmol. 1997;81:428-429.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Koch DD, Liu JF, Hyde LL, Rock RL, Emery JM. Refractive complications of cataract surgery after radial keratotomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 1989;108:676-682.
PUBMED
4. Celikkol L, Pavlopoulos G, Weinstein B, Celikkol G, Feldman ST. Calculation of intraocular lens power after radial keratotomy with
computerized videokeratography. Am J Ophthalmol. 1995;120:739-750.
PUBMED
5. Lyle WA, Jin GJ. Intraocular lens power prediction in patients who undergo cataract
surgery following previous radial keratotomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:457-461.
ABSTRACT
6. Lesher MP, Schumer DJ, Hunkeler JD, Durrie DS, McKee FE. Phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation after excimer
photorefractive keratectomy: a case report. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1994;20(suppl):265-267.
7. Kalski RS, Danjoux JP, Fraenkel GE, Lawless MA, Rogers C. Intraocular lens power calculation for cataract surgery after photorefractive
keratectomy for high myopia. J Refract Surg. 1997;13:362-366.
PUBMED
8. Morris AH, Whittaker KW, Morris RJ, Corbett MC. Errors in intraocular lens power calculation after photorefractive
keratectomy. Eye. 1998;12:327-328.
9. Speicher L, Gottinger W. Intraocular lens power calculation after decentered photorefractive
keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:140-143.
PUBMED
10. Gimbel H, Sun R, Kaye GB. Refractive error in cataract surgery after previous refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000;26:142-144.
PUBMED
11. Gimbel HV, Sun R. Accuracy and predictability of intraocular lens power calculation after
laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:571-576.
PUBMED
12. Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Intraocular lens calculations status after corneal refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2000;11:35-46.
PUBMED
13. Seitz B, Langenbucher A. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive
surgery. J Refract Surg. 2000;16:349-361.
PUBMED
14. Speicher L. Intra-ocular lens calculation status after corneal refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001;12:17-29.
PUBMED
15. Mandell RB. Corneal power correction factor for photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Corneal Surg. 1994;10:125-128.
PUBMED
16. Holladay JT, Dudeja DR, Koch DD. Evaluating and reporting astigmatism for individual and aggregate data. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:57-65.
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Gobbi PG, Carones F, Brancato R. Keratometric index, videokeratography, and refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:202-211.
PUBMED
18. Hersh PS, Schwartz-Goldstein BH. Corneal topography of phase III excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy:
characterization and clinical effects. The Summit Photorefractive Keratectomy
Topography Study Group. Ophthalmology. 1995;102:963-978.
ISI
| PUBMED
19. Maeda N, Klyce SD, Smolek MK, McDonald MB. Disparity between keratometry-style readings and corneal power within
the pupil after refractive surgery for myopia. Cornea. 1997;16:517-524.
PUBMED
20. Smith RJ, Chan WK, Maloney RK. The prediction of surgically induced refractive change from corneal
topography. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;125:44-53.
PUBMED
21. Siganos DS, Pallikaris IG, Lambropoulos JE, Koufala CJ. Keratometric readings after photorefractive keratectomy are unreliable
for calculating IOL power. J Refract Surg. 1996;12:S278-S279.
22. Seitz B, Langenbucher A, Nguyen NX, Kus MM, Kuchle M. Underestimation of intraocular lens power for cataract surgery after
myopic photorefractive keratectomy. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:693-702.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Oyo-Szerenyi KD, Wienecke L, Businger U, Schipper I. Autorefraction/autokeratometry and subjective refraction in untreated
and photorefractive keratectomy-treated eyes. Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115:157-164.
ABSTRACT
24. Holladay JT. Determining the power of an intraocular lens to achieve a postoperative
correction of-1.00: consultations in refractive surgery. Refract Corneal Surg. 1989;5:203.
25. Zeh WG, Koch DD. Comparison of contact lens overrefraction and standard keratometry
for measuring corneal curvature in eyes with lenticular opacity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:898-903.
PUBMED
26. Salchow DJ, Zirm ME, Stieldorf C, Parisi A. Comparison of objective and subjective refraction before and after
laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:827-835.
PUBMED
27. Mackool RJ. The cataract extraction-refraction-implantation technique for IOL power
calculation in difficult cases. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:434-435.
PUBMED
28. Hoffer KJ. Intraocular lens power calculation for eyes after refractive keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1995;11:490-493.
PUBMED
29. Happe W, Wiechens B, Haigis W, Behrendt S, Duncker G. Intraoperative skiaskopie zur bestimmung desbrechwerts einer zu implantierenden
intraokularlinse. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1997;210:207-212.
PUBMED
30. Gayton JL, Sanders V, Van der Karr M, Raanan MG. Piggybacking intraocular implants to correct pseudophakic refractive
error. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:56-59.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
RELATED ARTICLE
Calculating Intraocular Lens Power After Refractive Corneal Surgery
Kenneth J. Hoffer
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(4):500-501.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Who Needs a Reversibly Adjustable Intraocular Lens?
Nischal
Arch Ophthalmol 2007;125:961-962.
FULL TEXT
A Direct Method to Measure the Power of the Central Cornea After Myopic Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Sonego-Krone et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:159-166.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation for Cataract Surgery After Photorefractive Keratectomy
Odenthal et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1071-1071.
FU |
