Clinical History Method versus Corneal Tomographers in Estimating Corneal Power after

Authors: Alejandro Tello ^1-4; Virgilio Galvis ^1-3; Samuel Arba-Mosquera ⁵; Ruby Morales ⁶; Valeria Otoya ^1-3; Sylvia J. Villamizar ^1-3; Sergio E. Serrano ^1,3
Authors‘ workplace: Centro Oftalmológico Virgilio Galvis, Floridablanca, Colombia ¹; Departament of Ophthalmology, Fundacion Oftalmologica de, Santander FOSCAL, Floridablanca, Colombia ²; Faculty of Health, Department of Ophthalmology, Universidad, Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB, Bucaramanga, Colombia ³; Faculty of Health, Department of Surgery, Universidad Industrial, de Santander UIS, Bucaramanga, Colombia ⁴; Research and Development, SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany ⁵; ROCOL, Barranquilla, Colombia ⁶
Published in: Čes. a slov. Oftal., 80, 2024, No. Ahead of print, p. 1-12
Category: Original Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.31348/2024/23

Overview

Aims: To investigate the concordance between the corneal power determined by various approaches with two tomographers (MS-39® and Galilei G6®) and the clinical history method (CHM) in patients undergoing photorefractive surgery with excimer laser for myopic errors.

Material and Methods: Prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing keratorefractive surgery, and having pre- and postoperative keratometries, and tomographies, were included.

Results: In 90 eyes, the differences in the power estimated by the CHM and the one determined by four approaches with the corneal tomographers, which included measurements of the posterior cornea, did not show statistically significant differences in their averages. However, the 95% limits of agreement were very wide. After obtaining regression formulas to adjust the values of these four variables, the results of the agreement analysis were similar.

Conclusion: Although certain values either directly determined or derived from measurements with the Galilei® and MS-39®corneal tomographers, approximated the estimated value of postoperative corneal power according to the CHM, due to the amplitude of their limits of agreement, these calculations must be taken with care, because they may not be accurate in a given eye.

Keywords:

corneal power; corneal tomography; clinical history method; refractive surgery

Sources

Galvis V, Tello A, Otoya V, et al. Determination of Corneal Power after Refractive Surgery with Excimer Laser: A Concise Review. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2023;79(5):215-220. https://doi.org/10.31348/2023/8
Jaramillo LC, Galvis V, Tello A, et al. Determination of corneal power with a corneal tomograph after refractive excimer laser surgery. MedUNAB. 2018;21:16-45. https://doi.org/10.29375/01237047.2397
Pantanelli SM, Lin CC, AlMohtaseb Z, et al. Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Eyes with Previous Excimer Laser Surgery for Myopia: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2021;128:781-792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2020.10.031
Holladay JT. IOL Calculations following Radial Keratotomy Surgery. Refractive & Corneal Surgery. 1989;5:203.
Holladay JT, Galvis V, Tello A. Re: Wang et al.: Comparison of newer intraocular lens power calculation methods for eyes after corneal refractive surgery (Ophthalmology 2015;122:2443-9). Ophthalmology. 2016;123: e55-e56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ophtha.2016.02.038
Holladay JT, Hill WE, Steinmueller A. Corneal power measurements using scheimpflug imaging in eyes with prior corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2009;25:862-868. Erratum in: J Refract Surg. 2010;26:387. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20090917-07
Baradaran-Rafii A, Fekri S, Rezaie M et al. Accuracy of Different Topographic Instruments in Calculating Corneal Power after Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2017;12:254-259. https://doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_74_16
Lekhanont K, Nonpassopon M, Wannarosapark K, et al. Agreement between clinical history method, Orbscan IIz , and Pentacam in estimating corneal power after myopic excimer laser surgery. PLoS One. 2015;10:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123729
Ng ALK, Chan TCY, Cheng ACK. Comparison of different corneal power readings from Pentacam in post-laser in situ keratomileusis eyes. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44:S 370-375. https://doi. org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000503
de Rojas Silva MV, Tobío Ruibal A, Suanzes Hernández J. Corneal power measurements by ray tracing in eyes after small incision lenticular extraction for myopia with a combined Scheimpflug Camera-Placido disk topographer. Int Ophthalmol. 2022;42:921931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-02073-9
Elkitkat RS, Rifay Y, Gharieb HM, et al. Accuracy of the indices of MS39 anterior segment optical coherence tomography in the diagnosis of keratoconic corneas. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2022;32(4):21162124. https://doi.org/10.1177/11206721211063720
Doctor K, Vunnava KP, Shroff R, et al. Simplifying and understanding various topographic indices for keratoconus using Scheimpflug based topographers. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(12):27322743. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_2111_20.
Rodriguez AH, Galvis V, Tello A, et al. Fellow eye comparison between alcohol-assisted and single-step transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy: late mid-term outcomes. Rom J Ophthalmol 2020;64:176-183. https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2020.30
Holladay JT, Waring GO. Optics and topography of the cornea in RK. In: Waring GO (eds.) Refractive keratotomy for myopia and astigmatism. Mosby-Yearbook, St Louis, MO, USA,1992. pp 62-64.
Mandell RB. Corneal power correction factor for photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Corneal Surg. 1994;10:125-128.
Arba-Mosquera S, de Ortueta D. Analysis of optimized profiles for‘aberration-free’refractive surgery. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2009;29:535-548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2009.00670.x.
de Ortueta D, Arba-Mosquera S, Baatz H. Topographic changes after hyperopic LASIK with the SCHWIND ESIRIS laser platform. J Refract Surg. 2008;24:137-144. https://doi.org/10.3928/ 1081597X-20080201-03
de Ortueta D, Arba Mosquera S, Baatz H. Aberration-neutral ablation pattern in hyperopic LASIK with the ESIRIS laser platform. J Refract Surg. 2009;25:175-184. https://doi.org/10.3928/108159 7X-20090201-02
Pradhan KR, Arba Mosquera S. Twelve-month outcomes of a new refractive lenticular extraction procedure. J Optom. 2021;S18884296(21)00085-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2021.11.001
Portney LG, Gross D. Measurement Revisited: Reliability and Validity Statistics. In: Portney LG ( ed ) Foundations of Clinical Research

-Applications to Evidence Based Practice. FA Davis Company, Philadelphia, Penn, USA, 2020. p. 491.

Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research [published correction appears in J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-163. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Hodge C, McAlinden C, Lawless M, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation following laser refractive surgery. EyeVis (London). 2015;2:7. https:// doi:10.1186/s40662-015-0017-3
Ferguson TJ, Downes RA, Randleman JB. IOL power calculations after LASIK or PRK: Barrett True-K biometer-only calculation strategy yields equivalent outcomes as a multiple formula approach. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:784-789. https://doi:10.1097/j. jcrs.0000000000000883
Blaylock JF, Hall BJ. Refractive Outcomes Following Trifocal Intraocular Lens Implantation in Post-Myopic LASIK and PRK Eyes. Clinic Ophthalmol. 2022;16:2129-2136. https://doi:10.2147/OPTH.S370061