Abstract:Purpose To compare different corneal keratometry readings (swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry and Scheimpflug imaging) with a novel software platform for calculation of toric intraocular lenses. Setting Department of Ophthalmology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany. Design Retrospective, non-randomized, clinical trial. Methods Twenty-three eyes undergoing toric intraocular lens implantation were included. Inclusion criteria were preoperative regular corneal astigmatism of at least 1.00 D, no previous refractive surgery, no ocular surface diseases and no maculopathies. Lens exchange was performed with CALLISTO eye (Zeiss). For each patient, the expected postoperative residual refraction was calculated depending on three different corneal parameters of two different devices: standard K-front (K) and total keratometry (TK) obtained by a swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry system (IOL Master 700, Zeiss) as well as total corneal refractive power (TCRP) obtained by a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam AXL, Oculus). Barrett’s formula for toric intraocular lenses was used for all calculations within a novel software platform (EQ workplace, Zeiss FORUM ® ). Results were statistically compared with postoperative refraction calculated according to the Harris dioptric power matrix. Results The standard K values (mean PE 0.02 D ± 0.45 D) and TK values (mean PE 0.09 D ± 0.43 D) of the IOL Master 700 reached similar results ( p = 0.96). 78% of eyes in both K and TK groups achieved SE within ±0.5 D of attempted correction and all eyes (100%) were within ±1.0 D of attempted correction in both groups. By contrast, the prediction error in the IOL calculation using the TCRP of the Scheimpflug device was significantly greater (mean PE −0.56 D ± 0.49 D; p = 0.00 vs. standard K and p = 0.00 vs. TK) with adjusted refractive indices. Thirty-nine and Ninety-one percentage of eyes in the TCRP group achieved SE within ±0.5 D ( p = 0.008 K vs. TCRP and p = 0.005 TK vs. TCRP) and ± 1.0 D ( p = 0.14 vs. TCRP) of attempted correction, respectively. Conclusion All three corneal parameters (standard K, TK, TCRP) performed well in calculating toric IOLs. The most accurate refractive outcomes in toric IOL implantation were achieved by IOL calculations based on swept-source-OCT-assisted biometry. The SS-OCT-based K-front and TK values achieve comparable results in the calculation of toric IOLs.

Comparison of keratometry using SS-OCT and dual Scheimpflug-Placido imaging in postmyopic corneal refractive surgery eyes

Repeatability of total Keratometry and standard Keratometry by the IOLMaster 700 and comparison to total corneal astigmatism by Scheimpflug imaging

Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based tomography in eyes with previous myopic refractive surgery

Evaluating keratometry and corneal astigmatism data from biometers and anterior segment tomographers and mapping to reconstructed corneal astigmatism

Comparison of corneal topography maps obtained using the IOLMaster 700 ® and the Anterion ® in candidates for toric IOL implantation

Total and simulated keratometry measurements using IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL after small incision lenticule extraction

Comparison of toric intraocular lens calculation with the integrated K method and three single biometric devices

Comparison and evaluation of four different techniques of keratometric measurements

Comparing Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry Before and After Myopic Corneal Refractive Surgery With a Swept-Source OCT Biometer

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements and intraocular lens power calculation using different methods in eyes with implantable collamer lenses

Comparison of keratometric values and anterior segment parameters measured using Scheimpflug Sirius topography and Lenstar biometry

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction by American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery formulas and Barrett True-K TK in eyes with prior laser refractive surgery

Comparison of ocular biometric parameters between two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices and Scheimpflug tomography in patients with cataract

Comparison of Corneal Biomechanics in Post-SMILE, Post-LASEK, and Keratoconic Eyes

Comparison of corneal biomechanics in pre and post-refractive surgery and keratoconic eyes by Ocular Response Analyser

Keratometric Measurements and IOL Calculations in Pseudophakic Post-Dsaek Patients

Evaluation of Corneal High Order Aberrations in Post Laser-Assisted in Situ Keratomileusis versus Photorefractive Keratectomy in Myope

Accuracy of toric intraocular lens power calculation depending on different keratometry values using a novel network based software platform

Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia

Comparison of Pre- and Post-DMEK Keratometry and Total Keratometry Values for IOL Power Calculations in Eyes Undergoing Triple DMEK

Comparison of Corneal Power and Astigmatism Between Simulated Keratometry, True Net Power, and Total Corneal Refractive Power Before and after SMILE Surgery