Published in:
01-12-2019 | Cataract | Cataract
Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 12/2019
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
To compare the refractive outcomes following cataract surgery using conventional keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in the SRK/T, HofferQ, Haigis, and Holladay 1 and 2, as well as Barrett and Barrett TK Universal II formulas.
Methods
Sixty eyes of 60 patients from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were prospectively enrolled in this comparative study. Eyes were assessed using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Posterior keratometry, K, TK, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, axial length, and white-to-white corneal diameter were recorded. Emmetropic IOL power was calculated using K and TK in all formulas. Selected IOL power and predicted refractive outcomes were recorded. Postoperative manifest refraction was measured 3 months postoperatively. Mean absolute errors (MAEs), median absolute errors (MedAEs), and percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 1.00 D of predicted refraction were calculated for all formulas in both groups.
Results
Mean difference between K and TK was 0.03 D (44.56 ± 1.18 vs. 44.59 ± 1.22 D), showing excellent agreement (ICC = 0.99, all p < 0.001). Emmetropic IOL powers in all formulas for both groups were very similar, with a trend toward lower MAEs and MedAEs for TK when compared with K. The Barrett TK Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs. Proportion of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 1.00 D of predicted refraction were slightly higher in the TK group.
Conclusions
Conventional K and TK for IOL calculation showed strong agreement with a trend toward better refractive outcomes using TK. The same IOL constant can be used for both K and TK.