Outcomes of the Haigis-L formula for calculating intraocular lens power in extreme long axis eyes after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis.

To evaluate the accuracy of refractive prediction by the Haigis-L formula compared to four other IOL power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial lengths (AL > 29.0 mm) after LASIK. Shanghai Eye Disease and Prevention Treatment Center, Shanghai, China. Retrospective case series. Twenty-nine eyes from 19 patients were available for analysis. The primary outcome measure was the arithmetic refractive prediction error (RPE), defined as the difference between the actual postoperative refractive error and the intended formula-derived refractive target. The main outcome measure was the median absolute refraction prediction error (MedAE). The accuracy of the Haigis-L was compared with Barrett True K No History, Shammas-PL, SRK/Tcorrected K, and Holladay 2corrected K methods to calculate IOL power. The Haigis-L formula had a significantly larger MedAE than Shammas-PL and SRK/Tcorrected K formulas (P = 0.005 and P = 0.015, respectively), a smaller percentage of eyes within ±1.50 diopter (D) of predicted error in refraction compared with Shammas-PL and SRK/Tcorrected K formulas (P = 0.014 and P = 0.005, respectively). The refractive prediction errors of 6 eyes with corneal keratometry of less than 35 D by Haigis-L all had more than 1.95 D of myopic overestimation, while none of the other four methods resulted in an absolute error over 1.95 D. The Haigis-L formula was relatively accurate in predicting extreme long axis (>29.0 mm) eyes after myopic LASIK surgery but less accurate for eyes with extremely flat corneas (<35 D). SRK/Tcorrected K and Shammas-PL performed better than the other methods for refractive prediction in this type of eyes. Haigis-L performed worse than SRK/Tcorrected K and Shammas-PL in predicting IOL power in extremely long axis (>29.0 mm) eyes after myopic LASIK, especially with extremely flat corneas (K < 35 D).

Fang X ，Ben S ，Dong Y ，Chen X ，Xue W ，Wang Y ... -  《-》

Prediction accuracy of no-history intraocular lens formulas for a diffractive extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens after myopic corneal refractive surgery.

To compare the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation methods for extended depth-of-focus (EDoF) IOLs in eyes with a history of myopic laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) surgery lacking historical data. Changsha Aier Eye Hospital, Changsha, and Wuhan Aier Eye Hospital, Wuhan, China. Retrospective case series. Patients with axial lengths (ALs) ≥25.0 mm and a history of myopic LASIK/PRK surgery who underwent cataract surgery with implantation of EDoF IOLs were enrolled. A comparison was performed of the accuracy of 10 IOL methods lacking historical data, including Barrett True-K no history (Barrett TKNH), Haigis-L, Shammas, and Potvin-Hill formulas and average, minimum, and maximum IOL power on the ASCRS online postrefractive IOL calculator; Seitz/Speicher/Savini (Triple-S) formula; and Schuster/Schanzlin-Thomas-Purcell (SToP) formulas based on Holladay 1 and SRK/T formulas. IOL power was calculated with the abovementioned methods in 2 groups according to AL (Group 1: 25.0 mm ≤ AL < 28.0 mm and Group 2: AL ≥ 28.0 mm). 64 eyes were included. Excellent outcomes were achieved with the minimum, Barrett TKNH, SToP (SRK/T), and Triple-S formulas in the whole sample and subgroups, which led to similar median absolute error, mean absolute error, and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.5 diopters (D). In the whole sample, the Haigis-L and maximum formulas had a significantly higher absolute error than minimum, SToP (SRK/T), and Barrett TKNH formulas. The maximum formula also had a significantly lower percentage of eyes within ±0.5 D than the Barrett TKNH, and SToP (SRK/T) formulas (15.6% vs 50% and 51.5%, all P < .05 with Bonferroni adjustment). Predicting the EDoF IOL power in postmyopic refractive eyes by no-history IOL formulas remains challenging. The Barrett TKNH, Triple-S, minimum, and SToP (SRK/T) formulas achieved the best accuracy when AL ≥ 25.0 mm, while the Barrett TKNH and SToP (SRK/T) formulas were recommended when AL ≥ 28.0 mm.

Tan Q ，Wang Y ，Zhao L ，Peng M ，Zheng H ，Lin D ... -  《-》

Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia.

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). Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, and private practice, Mesa, Arizona, USA. Retrospective case series. 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. 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). 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.

Abulafia A ，Hill WE ，Koch DD ，Wang L ，Barrett GD ... -  《-》

Ray tracing software for intraocular lens power calculation after corneal excimer laser surgery.

Saiki M ，Negishi K ，Kato N ，Torii H ，Dogru M ，Tsubota K ... -  《-》

Prediction accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods after laser refractive surgery.

Wu Y ，Liu S ，Liao R 《-》