Intraocular Lens Power Calculations after Myopic Laser Refractive Surgery: A Comparison of Methods in 173 Eyes

Light-adjustable intraocular lens in post-LASIK and post-traumatic cataract patient

“…It showed that on the more accurate end of the spectrum, 58.8% of eyes were within G0.50 D of the predicted refraction and 84.5% of eyes were within G1.00 D of the predicted refraction. Poorer results included 53.8% of eyes within G0.50 D of the intended refraction and 80.9% of eyes within G1.00 D. 12 The patient in our case achieved an end refraction of 0.50 D, which falls in the range of greater refractive predictability according to the McCarthy et al study.…”

“…A study by McCarthy et al 12 compared various formulas used to calculate corneal power in the post-refractive patient. It showed that on the more accurate end of the spectrum, 58.8% of eyes were within G0.50 D of the predicted refraction and 84.5% of eyes were within G1.00 D of the predicted refraction.…”

“…Based on results in the initial 16 eyes, the data demonstrated that 75% of eyes achieved a refraction within G0.25 of the intended refraction and 94% of eyes, within G0.50 D. These results preliminarily appear to be superior to those reported in the McCarthy et al study. 12 As more post-refractive patients receive light-adjustable IOLs, it will be possible to report more confidently on the role that light-adjustable IOLs will play in cataract surgery in patients who have had LASIK.…”

Implantation of a multifocal toric intraocular lens with a surface-embedded near segment after repeated LASIK treatments

“…The percentages of correct refraction predictions within G2.00, G1.00, and G0.50 D were 98.4%, 84.0%, and 61.0%, respectively. 9 In another study of the use of the Haigis-L formula in eyes after myopic LASIK or photorefractive keratectomy, 10 40.2% of the eyes achieved visual outcomes within G0.5 D of the target refraction, 73.9% within G1.0 D, and 95.7% within G2.0 D. The mean arithmetic prediction error was À0.26 G 1.13 D. 10 The Haigis-L method has the advantage of not requiring historical information, which might not be available or could be inaccurate.…”

Accuracy of Scheimpflug Holladay Equivalent Keratometry Readings after Corneal Refractive Surgery in the Absence of Clinical History

“…Primary outcomes of the study were the mean arithmetic deviation and mean absolute deviation from the predicted value, as well as the range and standard deviation (SD), expressed in diopters. Although these variables are not functional measures, they have been used previously in several studies to facilitate comparison [19]. …”