Comparison of Methodologies Using Estimated or Measured Values of Total Corneal Astigmatism for Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the prediction error in the calculation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) associated with methods that estimate the power of the posterior corneal surface (ie, Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula) with that of methods that consider real measures obtained using Scheimpflug imaging: a software that uses vectorial calculation (Panacea toric calculator: http://www.panaceaiolandtoriccalculator.com) and a ray tracing software (PhacoOptics, Aarhus Nord, Denmark). METHODS: In 107 eyes of 107 patients undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (Acrysof IQ Toric; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), predicted residual astigmatism by each calculation method was compared with manifest refractive astigmatism. Prediction error in residual astigmatism was calculated using vector analysis. RESULTS: All calculation methods resulted in overcorrection of with-the-rule astigmatism and undercorrection of against-the-rule astigmatism. Both estimation methods resulted in lower mean and centroid astigmatic prediction errors, and a larger number of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of absolute prediction error than methods considering real measures (P < .001). Centroid prediction error (CPE) was 0.07 D at 172° for the Barrett toric calculator and 0.13 D at 174° for the Abulafia–Koch formula (combined with Holladay calculator). For methods using real posterior corneal surface measurements, CPE was 0.25 D at 173° for the Panacea calculator and 0.29 D at 171° for the ray tracing software. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula yielded the lowest astigmatic prediction errors. Directly evaluating total corneal power for toric IOL calculation was not superior to estimating it.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)794-800
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Refractive Surgery
Volume33
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2017

Cite this

@article{9c62ea880f6742868a3c749a252e1021,
title = "Comparison of Methodologies Using Estimated or Measured Values of Total Corneal Astigmatism for Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To compare the prediction error in the calculation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) associated with methods that estimate the power of the posterior corneal surface (ie, Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula) with that of methods that consider real measures obtained using Scheimpflug imaging: a software that uses vectorial calculation (Panacea toric calculator: http://www.panaceaiolandtoriccalculator.com) and a ray tracing software (PhacoOptics, Aarhus Nord, Denmark). METHODS: In 107 eyes of 107 patients undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (Acrysof IQ Toric; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), predicted residual astigmatism by each calculation method was compared with manifest refractive astigmatism. Prediction error in residual astigmatism was calculated using vector analysis. RESULTS: All calculation methods resulted in overcorrection of with-the-rule astigmatism and undercorrection of against-the-rule astigmatism. Both estimation methods resulted in lower mean and centroid astigmatic prediction errors, and a larger number of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of absolute prediction error than methods considering real measures (P < .001). Centroid prediction error (CPE) was 0.07 D at 172° for the Barrett toric calculator and 0.13 D at 174° for the Abulafia–Koch formula (combined with Holladay calculator). For methods using real posterior corneal surface measurements, CPE was 0.25 D at 173° for the Panacea calculator and 0.29 D at 171° for the ray tracing software. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula yielded the lowest astigmatic prediction errors. Directly evaluating total corneal power for toric IOL calculation was not superior to estimating it.",
author = "Ferreira, {Tiago B.} and Paulo Ribeiro and Ribeiro, {Filomena J.} and O'Neill, {Joao G.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
doi = "10.3928/1081597X-20171004-03",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "794--800",
journal = "Journal of Refractive Surgery",
issn = "1081-597X",
publisher = "Slack",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Methodologies Using Estimated or Measured Values of Total Corneal Astigmatism for Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

AU - Ferreira, Tiago B.

AU - Ribeiro, Paulo

AU - Ribeiro, Filomena J.

AU - O'Neill, Joao G.

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

N2 - PURPOSE: To compare the prediction error in the calculation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) associated with methods that estimate the power of the posterior corneal surface (ie, Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula) with that of methods that consider real measures obtained using Scheimpflug imaging: a software that uses vectorial calculation (Panacea toric calculator: http://www.panaceaiolandtoriccalculator.com) and a ray tracing software (PhacoOptics, Aarhus Nord, Denmark). METHODS: In 107 eyes of 107 patients undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (Acrysof IQ Toric; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), predicted residual astigmatism by each calculation method was compared with manifest refractive astigmatism. Prediction error in residual astigmatism was calculated using vector analysis. RESULTS: All calculation methods resulted in overcorrection of with-the-rule astigmatism and undercorrection of against-the-rule astigmatism. Both estimation methods resulted in lower mean and centroid astigmatic prediction errors, and a larger number of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of absolute prediction error than methods considering real measures (P < .001). Centroid prediction error (CPE) was 0.07 D at 172° for the Barrett toric calculator and 0.13 D at 174° for the Abulafia–Koch formula (combined with Holladay calculator). For methods using real posterior corneal surface measurements, CPE was 0.25 D at 173° for the Panacea calculator and 0.29 D at 171° for the ray tracing software. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula yielded the lowest astigmatic prediction errors. Directly evaluating total corneal power for toric IOL calculation was not superior to estimating it.

AB - PURPOSE: To compare the prediction error in the calculation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) associated with methods that estimate the power of the posterior corneal surface (ie, Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula) with that of methods that consider real measures obtained using Scheimpflug imaging: a software that uses vectorial calculation (Panacea toric calculator: http://www.panaceaiolandtoriccalculator.com) and a ray tracing software (PhacoOptics, Aarhus Nord, Denmark). METHODS: In 107 eyes of 107 patients undergoing cataract surgery with toric IOL implantation (Acrysof IQ Toric; Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Fort Worth, TX), predicted residual astigmatism by each calculation method was compared with manifest refractive astigmatism. Prediction error in residual astigmatism was calculated using vector analysis. RESULTS: All calculation methods resulted in overcorrection of with-the-rule astigmatism and undercorrection of against-the-rule astigmatism. Both estimation methods resulted in lower mean and centroid astigmatic prediction errors, and a larger number of eyes within 0.50 diopters (D) of absolute prediction error than methods considering real measures (P < .001). Centroid prediction error (CPE) was 0.07 D at 172° for the Barrett toric calculator and 0.13 D at 174° for the Abulafia–Koch formula (combined with Holladay calculator). For methods using real posterior corneal surface measurements, CPE was 0.25 D at 173° for the Panacea calculator and 0.29 D at 171° for the ray tracing software. CONCLUSIONS: The Barrett toric calculator and Abulafia–Koch formula yielded the lowest astigmatic prediction errors. Directly evaluating total corneal power for toric IOL calculation was not superior to estimating it.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85038611994&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&st1

U2 - 10.3928/1081597X-20171004-03

DO - 10.3928/1081597X-20171004-03

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 794

EP - 800

JO - Journal of Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Refractive Surgery

SN - 1081-597X

IS - 12

ER -