Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes

Abdelrahman M Anter; Adam R Bleeker; H John Shammas; Sanjana Suraneni; Brandon Kingrey; David A Murphy; Sebastian Leal; Seyyedehfatemeh Ghalibafan; Rahul S Tonk; David L Cooke; Kamran M Riaz

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2024.03.014

Comparison of Legacy and New No-History IOL Power Calculation Formulas in Postmyopic Laser Vision Correction Eyes

Am J Ophthalmol. 2024 Mar 20:264:44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.03.014. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ From the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami (A.M.A., S.S., S.L., S.G., R.S.T.), Miami, Florida, USA.
² Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma (A.R.B., B.K., D.A.M., K.M.R.), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
³ Department of Ophthalmology, University of Southern California, the Keck School of Medicine (H.J.S.), Los Angeles, California, USA; Shammas Eye Medical Center (H.J.S.), Lynwood, California, USA.
⁴ Great Lakes Eye Care (D.L.C.), Saint Joseph, Michigan, USA; Department of Neurology and Ophthalmology, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University (D.L.C.), East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
⁵ Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma (A.R.B., B.K., D.A.M., K.M.R.), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Electronic address: Kamran-Riaz@dmei.org.

PMID: 38518990
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.03.014

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the refractive accuracy of legacy and new no-history formulas in eyes with previous myopic laser vision correction (M-LVC).

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Methods: Setting: Two academic centers Study Population: 576 eyes (400 patients) with previous M-LVC that underwent cataract surgery between 2019-2023. A SS-OCT biometer was used to obtain biometric measurements, including standard (K), posterior (PK), and total keratometry values (TK).

Observation procedures: Refractive prediction errors were calculated for 11 no-history formulas: two legacy M-LVC formulas, four new M-LVC formulas using K values only, and five new M-LVC formulas using K with PK or TK.

Main outcome measures: Heteroscedastic testing was used to evaluate relative formula performance, and formulas were ranked by root mean square error (RMSE).

Results: New M-LVC formulas performed better than legacy M-LVC formulas. New M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values performed better than versions without PK/TK values. Among new M-LVC formulas with PK/TK values, EVO 2.0-PK was superior to Hoffer QST-PK (P < 0.005). Among new M-LVC formulas using K only, Pearl DGS-K and EVO 2.0-K were both superior to Hoffer QST-K and Barrett True K NH-K formulas (all P < 0.005).

Conclusions: Surgeons should favor using new no-history post M-LVC formulas over legacy post M-LVC formulas whenever possible. The top-performing M-LVC formulas (EVO 2.0-PK, Pearl DGS-PK, and Barrett True K-TK) utilized posterior corneal power values. Among formulas utilizing K alone, the EVO 2.0-K and Pearl DGS-K performed best.