With great interest, we read the article by Moshirfar et al. [...].

/pdf/comment-on-moshirfar-et-al-accuracy-of-six-intraocular-lens-1e18cetr.pdf

Comment on Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947

Myopia is the leading cause of visual impairment in the world. With ever-increasing prevalence in these years, it creates an alarming global epidemic. In addition to the difficulty in seeing distant objects, myopia also increases the risk of cataract and advances its onset, greatly affecting the productivity of myopes of working age. Cataract management in myopic eyes, especially highly myopic eyes is originally more complicated than that in normal eyes, whereas the growing population of cataract with myopia, increasing popularity of corneal and lens based refractive surgery, and rising demand for spectacle independence after cataract surgery all further pose unprecedented challenges to ophthalmologists. Previous history of corneal refractive surgery and existence of implantable collamer lens will both affect the accuracy of biometry including measurement of corneal curvature and axial length before cataract surgery, which may result in larger intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction errors and a compromise in the surgical outcome especially in a refractive cataract surgery. A prudent choice of formula for cataract patients with different characteristics is essential in improving this condition. Besides, the characteristics of myopic eyes might affect the long-term stability of IOL, which is important for the maintenance of visual outcomes especially after the implantation of premium IOLs, thus a proper selection of IOL accordingly is crucial. In this mini-review, we provide an overview of the impact of myopia epidemic on treatment for cataract and to discuss new challenges that surgeons may encounter in the foreseeable future when planning refractive cataract surgery for myopic patients.

Challenges of refractive cataract surgery in the era of myopia epidemic: a mini-review

Objective To evaluate the accuracy of 10 formulas for calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power in cataract eye with an axial length (AL) of more than 28.0 mm. Methods We searched scientific databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library for research published over the past 5 years, up to Sept 2023. The inclusion criteria were case series studies that compared different formulas (Barrett II, EVO, Kane, Hill-RBF, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRK/T, Holladay 1 w-k and SRK/T w-k), in patients with extremely long AL undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery with IOL implantation. The mean difference (MD) of mean absolute error (MAE) and the odds ratio (OR) of both the percentage of eyes within ±0.50D of prediction error (PPE±0.50D) and the percentage of eyes within ±1.00D of prediction error (PPE±1.00D) among different formulas were pooled using meta-analysis. Results A total of 11 studies, involving 1376 eyes, were included to evaluate the 10 formulas mentioned above. Among these formulas, Barrett II, EVO, Kane, and Hill-RBF demonstrated significantly lower MAE values compared to SRK/T. Furthermore, Kane and Hill-RBF had lower MAE values than EVO. Additionally, Barrett II and Kane yielded significantly lower MAE values than Haigis while Hill-RBF showed significantly lower MAE values than Holladay 1. Moreover, Hill-RBF showed the highest values for both PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D, followed by Kane. Both EVO and Kane had higher values of PPE±0.50D and PPE±1.00D compared to Haigis and SRK/T. Conclusion The Wang-Koch adjusted formulas and new-generation formulas have shown potential for higher accuracy in predicting IOL power for cataract patients with extremely long AL compared to traditional formulas. Based on the current limited clinical studies, Hill-RBF and Kane formulas seem to be a better choice for eyes with extremely long AL.

How to choose the intraocular lens power calculation formulas in eyes with extremely long axial length? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW
There is an ever-growing body of research regarding intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations following photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). This review intends to summarize recent data and offer updated recommendations.


RECENT FINDINGS
Postmyopic LASIK/PRK eyes have the best refractive outcomes when multiple methods are averaged, or when Barrett True-K is used. Posthyperopic LASIK/PRK eyes also seem to do best when Barrett True-K is used, but with more variable results. With both aforementioned methods, using measured total corneal power incrementally improves results. For post-SMILE eyes, the first nontheoretical data favors raytracing.


SUMMARY
Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery are less accurate and more variable compared to virgin eyes. Surgeons may simplify their approach to IOL power calculations in postmyopic and posthyperopic LASIK/PRK by using Barrett True-K, and employing measured total corneal power when available. For post-SMILE eyes, ray tracing seems to work well, but lack of accessibility may hamper its adoption.

An update on intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery.

Purpose To perform a multimodal assessment of refractive outcomes and quality of vision (QoV) in patients with high myopia submitted to multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Methods Retrospective study that included consecutive eyes with high myopia (axial length [AL] >26.00mm) submitted to multifocal IOL implantation between January 2014 and February 2020. Minimum follow-up time was 3 years. QoV was evaluated with the Objective Scatter Index (OSI) and the Modular Transfer Function (MTF) by HD Analyzer®. Two QoV questionnaires were applied to patients in which both eyes were included: the McAlinden and the Catquest-9 SF. Results We included 50 eyes (28 patients). The mean follow-up time was 5.4±1.0 years. Comparing to month 1 after surgery, at the last follow-up visit, there was a decrease in the uncorrected visual acuity (0.14±0.13 vs 0.08±0.09 LogMAR, p=0.024), a negative increase in the spherical equivalent (−0.31±0.60 vs −0.02±0.20, p=0.006) and no changes in the best-corrected visual acuity (p>0.999). An uncorrected near visual acuity of at least J2 was achieved in 89% of eyes one month after surgery and in 91% of eyes at the last follow-up visit (p=0.829). At the last follow-up, the mean OSI was 5.1±1.8 and the mean MTF was 17.5±10.6. Some degree of near vision difficulty was reported by 91% of patients, and 74% of patients reported photic phenomena (halos, glare, starbursts). However, most patients reported that these symptoms caused none to little bothersome. At the last follow-up, 87% of patients were at least fairly satisfied with the surgery. Conclusion Even after a mean follow-up time of 5 years, patients maintained good uncorrected visual acuity. Even though most patients experienced some degree of near vision difficulty and visual symptoms, globally, our patients were satisfied with their current vision, and the experienced symptoms did not have a significant impact on their daily lives.

Long-Term Refractive Outcomes and Visual Quality of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses Implantation in High Myopic Patients: A Multimodal Evaluation

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang–Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

/pdf/accuracy-of-six-intraocular-lens-power-calculations-in-eyes-5f81qr9d.pdf

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

We thank Cioni et al. for their suggestions and comments [...].

/pdf/reply-to-cione-et-al-comment-on-moshirfar-et-al-accuracy-of-1wpbjdyh.pdf

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on “Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947”

Purpose of review Light adjustable intraocular lenses (LALs) are a relatively new platform for cataract surgery that is shifting the paradigm for intraocular lens placement following cataract removal. Recent findings LALs may have additional utility in patients with prior refractive surgery and complex ocular conditions, as they give the surgeon greater latitude in preoperative intraocular power calculations to meet postoperative refractive goals. Summary Further study of best candidates for LALs is warranted. Current best candidates are patients who can comply with treatment and have decreased accuracy in calculating the preoperative intraocular power requirement.

Light adjustable intraocular lenses: an updated platform for cataract surgery

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

J.L. Jensen

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

Reply to Cione et al. Comment on “Moshirfar et al. Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5947”

Light adjustable intraocular lenses: an updated platform for cataract surgery