Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39387912›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2025

Assessing the predictability of five intraocular lens calculation methods in eyes with prior myopic keratorefractive lenticule extraction.

Mª Victoria de Rojas Silva, Adrián Tobío Ruibal, Jorge Suanzes Hernández, Hugo Darriba Folgar

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mª Victoria de Rojas SilvaVictoria de Rojas Instituto Oftalmológico - Policlínica Assistens, Grupo Ribera, A Coruña, Spain. derojas.v@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1211-0007
Adrián Tobío RuibalVictoria de Rojas Instituto Oftalmológico - Policlínica Assistens, Grupo Ribera, A Coruña, Spain.
Jorge Suanzes HernándezResearch Support Unit, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Hugo Darriba FolgarVictoria de Rojas Instituto Oftalmológico - Policlínica Assistens, Grupo Ribera, A Coruña, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare the predictability of five methods of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in eyes with prior keratorefractive lenticule extraction (KLEx) for the treatment of myopia.

methodsA retrospective case study included 100 eyes of 52 patients who underwent myopia and myopia with astigmatism treatment with small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Preoperative and 3-month postoperative measurements of optical biometry and corneal tomography were obtained. The spherical equivalent of the refractive change induced by surgery was converted to the corneal plane (SMILE-dif). A physically well-defined method was developed in which the same IOL model was implanted before and after SMILE. IOL power was calculated using ray-tracing (RT-Sirius), and several IOL power calculation formulas (Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett Universal II Formula, Hoffer QST) before surgery. After surgery, IOL power was calculated with RT-Sirius, Kane using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm by ray tracing, EVO 2.0 Post Myopic LASIK/PRK, Barrett True K and Hoffer QST Post Myopic LASIK/PRK after surgery. The difference between the refractive error induced by the IOL before and after SMILE in the corneal plane (IOL-dif) was compared with SMILE-dif. The predicted error (PE) was calculated as the difference between SMILE-dif and IOL-dif.

resultsThe PE obtained was 0.26 ± 0.55 diopters (D), 0.10 ± 0.45 D, 0.40 ± 0.37 D, -0.03 ± 0.36 D, 0.02 ± 0.51 D, with RT-Sirius, Kane, EVO 2.0, Barrett True K, and Hoffer QST respectively. PE was not statistically significantly different between Barrett True K and Hoffer QST, with differences being more homogeneous with Barrett, (variance σ

conclusionsBarrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for the correction of myopia. KEY MESSAGES: What is known The literature regarding IOL power calculation after SMILE is sparse, and the methods used to estimate corneal power following LASIK/PRK may not be applicable to SMILE procedures. The most common approach to investigating the predictability of IOL calculation formulas involves a theoretical model encompassing the virtual implantation of an IOL. What is new The Hoffer QST formula, Kane formula using Mean Pupil Power at 5.5 mm, EVO 2.0, and Sirius' Ray Tracing software had not been previously evaluated using this approach. The Barrett True K formula was the most accurate method for IOL calculation in eyes that had undergone SMILE for myopia correction, outperforming Ray Tracing.

Indexed as

BiometryCorneal StromaCorneal Surgery, LaserLasers, ExcimerLenses, IntraocularLens Implantation, IntraocularMyopiaOptics and PhotonicsRefraction, OcularVisual AcuityAdultCorneal TopographyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleIntraocular lens calculationKeratorefractive lenticule extractionRay tracingScheimpflug tomography

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.