Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Retrospective comparative analysis of intraocular lens calculation formulas after hyperopic refractive surgery

  • Anibal Francone ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    anibalfrancone@live.com.ar

    ‡ This author is the first author on this work.

    Affiliations Centro Oftalmológico Dr. Charles Sociedad Anónima, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Nicole Lemanski,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Martin Charles,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition

    Affiliation Centro Oftalmológico Dr. Charles Sociedad Anónima, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • Sheila Borboli-Gerogiannis,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Sherleen Chen,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Resources, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Marie-Claude Robert,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology

    Affiliation Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

  • Roberto Pineda II

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America

Retrospective comparative analysis of intraocular lens calculation formulas after hyperopic refractive surgery

  • Anibal Francone, 
  • Nicole Lemanski, 
  • Martin Charles, 
  • Sheila Borboli-Gerogiannis, 
  • Sherleen Chen, 
  • Marie-Claude Robert, 
  • Roberto Pineda II
PLOS
x

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the intraocular lens calculation formulas and evaluate postoperative refractive results of patients with previous hyperopic corneal refractive surgery.

Design

Retrospective, comparative, observational study.

Setting

Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Methods

Clinical charts and optical biometric data of 39 eyes from 24 consecutive patients diagnosed with previous hyperopic laser vision correction and cataract surgery were reviewed and analyzed. The Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using the Holladay 2 formula (Lenstar) and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) Post-Refractive IOL Calculator (version 4.9, 2017) were compared to the actual manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) following cataract surgery. No pre-Lasik / PRK or post-Lasik / PRK information was used in any of the calculations. The IOL prediction error, the mean IOL prediction error, the median absolute refractive prediction error, and the percentages of eyes within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.00 D of the predicted refraction were calculated.

Results

The Holladay 2 formula produced a mean arithmetic IOL prediction error significantly different from zero (P = 0.003). Surprisingly, the mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors generated by Shammas, Haigis-L and Barret True K No History formulas were not significantly different from zero (P = 0.14, P = 0.49, P = 0.81, respectively).There were no significant differences in the median absolute refractive prediction error or percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D or ± 1.00 D of the predicted refraction between formulas or methods.

Conclusion

In eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK and no prior data, there were no significant differences in the accuracy of IOL power calculation between the Holladay 2 formula and the ASCRS Post-refractive IOL calculator.

Introduction

Laser vision correction (LVC), more specifically, Laser assisted in situ Keratomileusis (LASIK) and photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) are popular options for the correction of myopia, astigmatism, and hyperopia. [13] Hyperopic LASIK and PRK treatment algorithms are utilized in the treatment of both hyperopia and presbyopia, with and without astigmatism. The uncorrected visual acuity outcomes achieved by laser vision correction in this cohort are outstanding, [45] and, in due course for their cataract surgery, post refractive patients expect the same quality of vision achieved by LVC.

However, the calculation of IOL power for cataract surgery after LVC is challenging because the reshaping of the anterior cornea interrupts the normal anterior to posterior curvature ratio, introducing error in the corneal power measurement. [67] As described by Haigis and Goes, [8] alterations in the corneal shape are responsible for a radius measurement error, [9] a keratometer index error and an IOL formula error; all of which lead to errors in the measure of the true cornea power, causing a refractive surprise after cataract surgery:hyperopia in post myopic LVC patients and myopia in post hyperopic LVC patients.

The margin of error may be smaller in post hyperopic LVC patients than post-myopic LVC for several reasons. First, hyperopic LVC ablations usually correct a lower amount of hyperopia compared to myopia. [89] Second, the central corneal ablation in a myopic treatment creates a more oblate cornea and, in doing so, changes the anterior curvature more centrally than peripherally, reducing the axial length (AL)[10] and the anterior chamber depth (ACD). [11] Hyperopic LVC, in contrast, has fewer changes in these parameters, as the ablation pattern is more of a peripheral ring, in an attempt to create a more prolate cornea. [12]

The internal use of the corneal power as a co-predictor for the effective lens position (ELP) causes the IOL formula error.[1314] Newer formulas, such as Holladay 2, eliminate the formula error by using seven variables to estimate ELP; Axial length (AL), keratometry (K), horizontal white-to-white (WTW) corneal diameter, pre-cataract refraction (R), ACD, lens thickness (LT) and the age of the patient.[15] Due to the well-documented accuracy and predictability of the Holladay 2 formula,[1619] we have used it to calculate the IOL power in eyes with previous hyperopic Lasik or PRK, without considering prior-LASIK / PRK data.

The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and predictability of Holladay 2 formula to those available on the website of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (The ASCRS online Post-Refractive IOL Power calculator—version 4.9, 2017).

Materials and methods

A retrospective chart review of consecutive patients diagnosed with previous hyperopic corneal refractive surgery and cataract surgery between January 1, 2010 and March 2015 in the Cornea Division at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI),of the Harvard Medical School was performed.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the MEEI and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of 133 Helsinki and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Cases were identified by a medical billing record search, using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis code 13.41 for phacoemulsification and aspiration of cataract.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in Table 1. Both paper-based and electronic records were reviewed to determine demographic and medical information of all the patients included. Surgical records of patients with previous hyperopic corneal refractive surgery who underwent cataract surgery were analyzed.

Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was recorded at each visit, reported in Snellen fraction, and was then converted into logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) values for statistical analysis.

All surgeries were performed by 1 of 3 surgeons (R.P., S.C. and S.B.G.) using a temporal clear corneal incision and phacoemulsification technique with in-the-bag IOL placement. The keratometry (K), axial length (AL), white-to-white (WTW), lens thickness, and anterior chamber depth (ACD) values were obtained with LENSTAR LS900 optical spectroscopy (Haag-Streit, Bern, Switzerland). Keratometry was measured using a 1.3375 index of refraction and the flattest and steepest meridians were included. The TECNIS ZCB00 monofocal IOL (Abbott Medical Optics, California) was implanted. The IOL constant was taken from ULIB webpage [20] and the IOL power was calculated using the Holladay 2 formula. The surgeon selected the IOL power to be implanted based on his or her judgment.

Based on the optical biometric data obtained prior to cataract surgery, the IOL predicted power calculation using the Holladay 2 formula (Lenstar LS900 optical spectroscopy) and the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL Calculator for Eyes with Prior Hyperopic LASIK/PRK (version 4.9, 2017) was performed and compared to the actual manifest refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE) following cataract surgery. No pre-Lasik / PRK information was used in any of the calculations. As a consequence, we only obtained results from Shammas, [21] Haigis-L [22] and Barret True K No History [2324] online formulas.

The calculation of the IOL prediction error was based on the work of Wang et al.: [25]

IOL Prediction Error = Implanted IOL Power—Predicted IOL Power.

Thus, a positive value indicates that the method predicted an IOL of lower power than the power of the implanted IOL, which would result in post-operative hyperopia. Mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction errors, variances in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error, and percentage of eyes within 0.50 diopter (D) and 1.00 D of refractive prediction errors were calculated. Positive mean arithmetic IOL prediction error values indicate that the method underestimated the IOL power; contrarily, negative values indicate that the method overestimated the IOL power. A smaller variance in mean arithmetic IOL prediction error indicates better consistency of IOL prediction with that method. Assuming that 1.00 D of IOL prediction error produces 0.70 D of refractive error at the spectacle plane, [26] the percentage of eyes with a refractive prediction error within ± 0.50 D and within ±1.00 D was computed for each method. Prediction errors were then compared between all methods, and the statistical analysis was performed.

The 1-sample t-test was used to determine whether the mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors produced by various methods were significantly different from zero. Analysis of variance was performed to compare differences in IOL prediction errors between methods. The variances in the mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors were tested using the F-test for variances to assess the consistency of the prediction performance by different methods. The percentage of eyes within certain refractive prediction errors were compared using the chi-square test. The Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple tests. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel and SPSS for Windows software (version 25, SPSS, Inc.). A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The clinical charts of 315 patients diagnosed with a history of LASIK or PRK and cataract surgery were reviewed. 291 patients were excluded because they met one or more exclusion criteria. At the end of the review process, 39 eyes of 24 patients were included in the study (Fig 1). Patient demographics are summarized in Table 2.

thumbnail
Fig 1. Study design and inclusion of patients during clinical chart review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224981.g001

Table 3 shows the mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction errors. IOL prediction errors including Holladay 2, Shammas, Haigis-L, Barrett True K No History methods and Average IOL power from ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL Calculator are illustrated in Fig 2.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Box Plot of IOL power prediction errors with different IOL power calculation formulas.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224981.g002

thumbnail
Table 3. Mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error using Holladay 2 and no prior data methods from ASCRS IOL calculator (implanted IOL power—predicted IOL power).

A positive value indicates that a lower power than the power implanted was predicted and that would result in post-operative hyperopia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224981.t003

With no prior data, the mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors were -0.5 D for Holladay 2, -0.2 D for Shammas, 0.12 D for Haigis-L, -0.03 D for Barret True K No History while the mean absolute prediction errorswere 0.69 D, 0.68 D, 0.71 D and 0.64 D, respectively. The Holladay 2 method produced mean arithmetic IOL prediction error that was significantly different from zero (P = 0.003). Shammas, Haigis-L and Barret True K No History produced mean arithmetic IOL prediction errors that were not significantly different from zero (P = 0.14, P = 0.49, P = 0.81, respectively). There were no differences in absolute IOL prediction errors between methods in any category. As shown in Table 4, there were not significant differences in variances between methods.

Holladay 2 formula had a significantly higher percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D of the refractive prediction error (71.8%) than methods using no prior data from ASCRS (66.7%, 51.6% and 53.9%, respectively). However, as showed in Table 5, these methods had a higher percentage of eyes within ± 1.00 D of refractive prediction error (84.6%, 83.9%, 89.7%, respectively) than Holladay 2 (79.5%) (all P < 0.05 with Bonferroni correction).

thumbnail
Table 5. Percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.00 D of predicted refraction using various methods.

Assuming that 1.0 D of IOL prediction error produces 0.7 D of refractive error at the spectacle plane.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224981.t005

We were unable to obtain the results of the IOL calculation with Haigis-L formula in eight eyes since the ACD and LT data were not available.

Discussion

The number of patients undergoing cataract surgery with past history of LASIK or PRK is increasing. [26] The reliability of IOL power prediction formulas in those cases is a problem of clinical significance. There are large, well powered studies evaluating IOL prediction formulas in patients who are post myopic LASIK or PRK,[2733] but studies evaluating these formulas in patients after hyperopic LASIK or PRK are infrequent and evaluate a small number of patients.[21,3436] Data pertaining to refraction error, prior to LASIK or PRK, treatment, which would be useful for the clinician and for the IOL power calculation, is often not available. To our knowledge, there are not any studies which have compared formulas that rely on no previous data. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of the Holladay 2 formula and the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL calculator formulas using no prior data.

When performing the statistical analysis, the methods of the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL calculator produced a mean arithmetic IOL prediction error close to zero, whereas Holladay 2 predicted higher IOL power by 0.5 D. This difference may be due to the fact that Holladay 2 output results are reported in round numbers (0.50 D increments), whereas the predicted IOL power in ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL calculator is given in a continuous numerical scale. Additionally, a mild myopic refractive error is observed, which may be a consequence of the keratometer index error, since we have ignored the change in the ratio between the anterior and posterior cornea after the resulting hyperopic LASIK / PRK that causes an underestimation of effective corneal power and consequently stronger IOL powers.

In accordance with the results of previous studies,[21,25,34] no differences were found regarding the absolute IOL prediction errors between methods. Likewise, the small variance of arithmetic IOL prediction error of each method showed the consistency of IOL prediction performance for each formula.

With the assumption that 1.00 D of IOL prediction error produces 0.70 D of refractive error at the spectacle plane, the absolute prediction error was used to calculate the percentage of eyes within ± 0.50 D and ± 1.00 D of the predicted refraction. Although suboptimal for the current refractive expectations for the patients, in the general population, benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after cataract surgery have been established in the National Health Service of the United Kingdom[37] and the Swedish National Cataract Register Study.[38] These standards are: 55% of eyes achieving refraction within ± 0.50 D of the predicted refraction and 85% of eyes achieving refraction within ± 1.00 D of the predicted refraction. In our study, 2 out of 4 methods (Holladay 2 and Shammas formula) evaluated in eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK met the benchmark standards set in normal eyes: the formulas Holladay 2 and Shammas met the low benchmark of at least 55% of eyes within ± 0.50 D, the former being the one that reached the highest percentage (71.8%). Only the Barrett True K History formula met the standard of 85% when evaluating the percentage of eyes within ± 1.00 D of the predicted refraction and Holladay 2 had the lowest percentage of the four formulas (79.5%).

The performance of the average (mean) IOL power displayed on the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL calculator was also evaluated. This method had values that were not significantly different from Holladay 2 and those using no prior data.

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to investigate and compare the post-cataract surgery refractive results of patients with previous hyperopic corneal refractive surgery using the Holladay 2 and the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL calculator formulas. However, it was a retrospective analysis and the number of patients included is relatively low compared to previous studies evaluating IOL power predictions after myopic LASIK/PRK. Another limitation is that the surgeries were performed by three different experienced surgeons (R.P., S.C. and S.B.G.); nevertheless, in subgroup analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean arithmetic and absolute IOL prediction error values between the three surgeons (P = 0.3, P = 0.4 and P = 0.3). Additionally, ACD and LT data from eight eyes were not available, thus preventing us from using the Haigis-L formula on those eyes. Although Holladay 2 uses LT to estimate ELP, the Holladay IOL Consultant & Surgical Outcomes Assessment Program (HIC.SOAP) discloses that it is not imperative to enter LT value for eyes with AL >22 mm and all those eyes had AL >22 mm. Finally, additional research is required applying existing formulas using Scheimpflug or OCT imaging of the anterior and posterior corneal surface to adjust IOL power after refractive surgery.

In summary, Holladay 2 and methods using no prior data had similar mean absolute IOL prediction errors and variances. Holladay 2 had a greater percentage of eyes within ± 0.50D of the refractive prediction when compared with the ASCRS Post-Refractive IOL Calculator formulas and thus may be used as a guide for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK if the pre-LASIK/PRK data is not available. The limitations of the current formulas for IOL calculation in eyes with previous hyperopic laser vision correction indicate that further studies are needed.

Acknowledgments

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

References

  1. 1. Davidson RS, Dhaliwal D, Hamilton DR, Jackson M, Patterson L, Stonecipher K, et al. Surgical correction of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(6):920–30. pmid:27373400
  2. 2. Krueger RR, Rabinowitz YS, Binder PS. The 25th anniversary of excimer lasers in refractive surgery: historical review. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 2010 Oct;26(10):749–60.
  3. 3. Alió JL, Soria F, Abbouda A, Peña-García P. Laser in situ keratomileusis for -6.00 to -18.00 diopters of myopia and up to -5.00 diopters of astigmatism: 15-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Jan;41(1):33–40. pmid:25465210
  4. 4. Varley GA, Huang D, Rapuano CJ, Schallhorn S, Boxer Wachler BS, Sugar A LASIK for hyperopia, hyperopic astigmatism, and mixed astigmatism: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Technology Assessment Committee Refractive Surgery Panel, American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2004 Aug; 111(8):1604–1617. pmid:15288995
  5. 5. Sher NA Hyperopic refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001 Aug; 12(4):304–8. pmid:11507345
  6. 6. Hamilton DR, Hardten DR. Cataract surgery in patients with prior refractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2003 Feb;14(1):44–53. pmid:12544810
  7. 7. Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Oct;34(10):1658–63. pmid:18812114
  8. 8. Haigis W, Goes FJ. IOL Calculation after Refractive Laser Surgery for Hyperopia. In: Goes FJ, ed, Lens Surgery After Previous Refractive Surgery. New Delhi, India: Jaypee Brothers; 2011. p. 55–9.
  9. 9. Wang L, Jackson DW, Koch DD. Methods of estimating corneal refractive power after hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Jun;28(6):954–61 pmid:12036636
  10. 10. Rosa N, Capasso L, Lanza M, Romano A. Axial eye length evaluation before and after myopic photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg Thorofare NJ 1995. 2005 Jun;21(3):281–7.
  11. 11. Nawa Y, Yamashita J, Tomita M. Decreased anterior chamber depth after myopic LASIK. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 May;36(5):873–874; author reply 874. pmid:20457395
  12. 12. Awwad ST, Kelley PS, Bowman RW, Cavanagh HD, McCulley JP. Corneal refractive power estimation and intraocular lens calculation after hyperopic LASIK. Ophthalmology. 2009 Mar;116(3):393–400.e1. pmid:19264214
  13. 13. Fyodorov SN, Galin MA, Linksz A. Calculation of the optical power of intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol. 1975 Aug;14(8):625–8. pmid:1150402
  14. 14. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Mar;34(3):368–76. pmid:18299059
  15. 15. Mahdavi S, Holladay J. IOLMaster 500 and integration of the Holladay2 Formula for intraocular lens calculations. Eur Ophthalmic Rev. 2011;5(2):134–135.
  16. 16. Narváez J, Zimmerman G, Stulting RD, Chang DH. Accuracy of intraocular lens power prediction using the Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, and SRK/T formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006 Dec;32(12):2050–3. pmid:17137982
  17. 17. Trivedi RH, Wilson ME, Reardon W. Accuracy of the Holladay 2 intraocular lens formula for pediatric eyes in the absence of preoperative refraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jul;37(7):1239–43. pmid:21549558
  18. 18. Bang S, Edell E, Yu Q, Pratzer K, Stark W. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology. 2011 Mar;118(3):503–6. pmid:20884057
  19. 19. Ghanem AA, El-Sayed HM. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation in high myopia. Oman J Ophthalmol. 2010;3(3):126–30. pmid:21120048
  20. 20. Optimized IOL constants for the Haag-Streit Lenstar 900 [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2017 Aug 28]. Available from: http://ocusoft.de/ulib/hs/const/lsc1-new.php
  21. 21. Shammas HJ, Shammas MC, Hill WE. Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 May;39(5):739–44. pmid:23608568
  22. 22. Haigis W., Goes F. IOL calculation after laser refractive surgery for hyperopia with current measurements. XXVI Congr Eur Soc Cataract Refract Surg ESCRS. Berlin, Sep 13–17, 2008.
  23. 23. Barrett GD. Intraocular lens calculation formulas for new intraocular lens implants. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1987 Jul;13(4):389–96. pmid:3625516
  24. 24. Barrett GD. An improved universal theoretical formula for intraocular lens power prediction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993 Nov;19(6):713–20. pmid:8271166
  25. 25. Wang L, Hill WE, Koch DD. Evaluation of intraocular lens power prediction methods using the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons Post-Keratorefractive Intraocular Lens Power Calculator. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Sep;36(9):1466–73. pmid:20692556
  26. 26. Williams A, Sloan FA, Lee PP. Longitudinal Rates of Cataract Surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(9):1308–1314. pmid:16966626
  27. 27. Feiz V, Mannis MJ, Garcia-Ferrer F, Kandavel G, Darlington JK, Kim E, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and hyperopia: a standardized approach. Cornea. 2001 Nov;20(8):792–7. pmid:11685053
  28. 28. Hugger P, Kohnen T, La Rosa FA, Holladay JT, Koch DD. Comparison of changes in manifest refraction and corneal power after photorefractive keratectomy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Jan;129(1):68–75. pmid:10653415
  29. 29. Hamed AM, Wang L, Misra M, Koch DD. A comparative analysis of five methods of determining corneal refractive power in eyes that have undergone myopic laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2002 Apr;109(4):651–8. pmid:11927420
  30. 30. Fam HB, Lim KL. A comparative analysis of intraocular lens power calculation methods after myopic excimer laser surgery. J Refract Surg. 2008 Apr;24(4):355–60. pmid:18500084
  31. 31. McCarthy M, Gavanski GM, Paton KE, Holland SP. Intraocular lens power calculations after myopic laser refractive surgery: a comparison of methods in 173 eyes. Ophthalmology. 2011 May;118(5):940–4. pmid:21131054
  32. 32. Wu Y, Liu S, Liao R. Prediction accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation methods after laser refractive surgery. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 Apr 8;17(1):44. pmid:28390411
  33. 33. Wang L, Tang M, Huang D, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Comparison of Newer Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods for Eyes after Corneal Refractive Surgery. Ophthalmology. 2015 Dec;122(12):2443–9. pmid:26459996
  34. 34. Hamill EB, Wang L, Chopra HK, Hill W, Koch DD. Intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017 Feb;43(2):189–94. pmid:28366365
  35. 35. Chokshi AR, Latkany RA, Speaker MG, Yu G. Intraocular lens calculations after hyperopic refractive surgery. Ophthalmology. 2007 Nov;114(11):2044–9. pmid:17459483
  36. 36. Tang M, Wang L, Koch DD, Li Y, Huang D. Intraocular lens power calculation after myopic and hyperopic laser vision correction using optical coherence tomography. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan;26(1):19–24. pmid:23960964
  37. 37. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M. Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye Lond Engl. 2009 Jan;23(1):149–52.
  38. 38. Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U, Kugelberg M, Zetterström C, Lundström M. Aiming for emmetropia after cataract surgery: Swedish National Cataract Register study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Jul;38(7):1181–6. pmid:22727287