Abstract
Purpose
To compare the performance of Barrett toric calculator incorporated with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam HR versus predicted PCA.
Methods
The predicted residual astigmatism using Barrett toric IOL calculator with predicted PCA, measured PCA from IOL Master 700 and measured PCA from Pentacam were calculated with the preoperative keratometry and intended IOL axis with modification. The vector analysis was performed to calculate the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the centroid of the prediction error and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.
Results
In 57 eyes of 57 patients with mean age of 70.42 ± 10.75 years, the MAE among the three calculation methods were 0.59 ± 0.38 D (Predicted PCA), 0.60 ± 0.38 D (Measured PCA from IOL Master 700) and 0.60 ± 0.36 D (Measured PCA from Pentacam) with no significant difference, either in the whole sample, the WTR eyes and the ATR eyes (F = 0.078, 0.306 and 0.083, p = 0.925, 0.739 and 0.920, respectively). Measured PCA obtained from IOL Master 700 resulted in one level reduction (from Tn to Tn-1) in 49.12% eyes in cylindrical model selection, while measured PCA obtained from Pentacam resulted in one level reduction of toric model selection in 18.18% eyes.
Conclusion
The present study suggested that the incorporation of measured PCA values derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam produce comparable clinical outcome with the predicted PCA mode in Barrett toric calculator.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 18 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $14.39 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The original dataset of the study is available with reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author Dr. Bu Shaochong through email at bushaochong@163.com.
References
Visser N, Bauer NJ, Nuijts RM. Toric intraocular lenses: historical overview, patient selection, IOL calculation, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:624–37.
Lee BS, Onishi AC, Chang DF. Comparison of rotational stability and repositioning rates of 2 presbyopia-correcting and 2 monofocal toric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:622–6.
Warwick A, Porteous A, Saw VPJ. Visual and autorefraction outcomes following toric intraocular lens insertion without calculation of posterior corneal astigmatism in the UK National Health Service. Eye (Lond). 2020;34:2082–8.
Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Kleinmann G, Ofir S, Levy A, Marcovich AL, et al. Prediction of refractive outcomes with toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:936–44.
Savini G, Naeser K. An analysis of the factors influencing the residual refractive astigmatism after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:827–35.
Koch DD, Ali SF, Weikert MP, Shirayama M, Jenkins R, Wang L. Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:2080–7.
Park DY, Lim DH, Hwang S, Hyun J, Chung TY. Comparison of astigmatism prediction error taken with the Pentacam measurements, Baylor nomogram, and Barrett formula for toric intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:156.
Abulafia A, Koch DD, Wang L, Hill WE, Assia EI, Franchina M, et al. New regression formula for toric intraocular lens calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:663–71.
Skrzypecki J, Sanghvi Patel M, Suh LH. Performance of the Barrett Toric Calculator with and without measurements of posterior corneal curvature. Eye (Lond). 2019;33:1762–7.
Holladay JT, Wilcox RR, Koch DD, Wang L. Astigmatism analysis and reporting of surgically induced astigmatism and prediction error. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:799–812.
Schallhorn SC, Hettinger KA, Pelouskova M, Teenan D, Venter JA, Hannan SJ, et al. Effect of residual astigmatism on uncorrected visual acuity and patient satisfaction in pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:991–8.
Yang S, Byun YS, Kim HS, Chung SH. Comparative accuracy of Barrett Toric Calculator with and without posterior corneal astigmatism measurements and the Kane Toric Formula. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;231:48–57.
Wang L, Koch DD. Comparison of accuracy of a toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49:29–33.
Kane JX, Connell B. A comparison of the accuracy of 6 modern toric intraocular lens formulas. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:1472–86.
Langenbucher A, Szentmary N, Cayless A, Casaza M, Weisensee J, Hoffmann P, et al. Surgically induced astigmatism after cataract surgery - a vector analysis. Curr Eye Res. 2022;47:1279–87.
Sheoran K, Arya SK, Bansal RK, Jinagal J, Jha UP. Surgically induced astigmatism and posterior corneal curvature changes following phacoemulsification. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:406–12.
Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, Singh P, Muller M, Kohnen T. Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:58–64.
Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, Kiraly L. Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40:318–22.
Kose B. Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based topography measurements of posterior corneal curvature. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:185–9.
Funding
This study was funded by Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project (TJYXZDXK-037A), Science & Technology Development Fund of Tianjin Education Commission for Higher Education (2020KJ179) and the grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81900846).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
XTY is responsible for data collection and drafting the manuscript. YFJ is responsible for data analysis and interpretation. Ms XMB and Ms YFY are responsible for administrative support and creating the artworks and tables. JY and FYZ are responsible for reviewing the data and critical review the interpretation. SL is responsible for patient investigation. FT is responsible for managing the patients and performing the operation. XTC and JLL is responsible for writing the proposal for research funding and administration. SCB is responsible for project coordination, critical review of the manuscript and finalizing the submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
41433_2023_2646_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Supplementary Table 1: Prediction error of spherical equivalence (SE) using predicted PCA and measured PCA obtained by IOL Master 700
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, X., Jiang, Y., Lin, S. et al. The predictive accuracy of Barrett toric calculator using measured posterior corneal astigmatism derived from swept source-OCT and Scheimpflug camera. Eye 38, 132–137 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02646-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02646-1