Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery

• Main Authors: Sabong Srivannaboon, Chareenun Chirapapaisan
• Other Authors: Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
• Format: Article
• Published: 2020
• Subjects: Medicine
• Online Access: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/51263
• Institution: Mahidol University

© 2019, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature. Purpose: To compare the refractive outcomes following cataract surgery using conventional keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in the SRK/T, HofferQ, Haigis, and Holladay 1 and 2, as well as Barrett and Barrett TK Universal II formulas. Methods: Sixty eyes of 60 patients from Siriraj Hospital, Thailand, were prospectively enrolled in this comparative study. Eyes were assessed using a swept-source optical biometer (IOLMaster 700; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Posterior keratometry, K, TK, central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, axial length, and white-to-white corneal diameter were recorded. Emmetropic IOL power was calculated using K and TK in all formulas. Selected IOL power and predicted refractive outcomes were recorded. Postoperative manifest refraction was measured 3 months postoperatively. Mean absolute errors (MAEs), median absolute errors (MedAEs), and percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 1.00 D of predicted refraction were calculated for all formulas in both groups. Results: Mean difference between K and TK was 0.03 D (44.56 ± 1.18 vs. 44.59 ± 1.22 D), showing excellent agreement (ICC = 0.99, all p < 0.001). Emmetropic IOL powers in all formulas for both groups were very similar, with a trend toward lower MAEs and MedAEs for TK when compared with K. The Barrett TK Universal II formula demonstrated the lowest MAEs. Proportion of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, and ± 1.00 D of predicted refraction were slightly higher in the TK group. Conclusions: Conventional K and TK for IOL calculation showed strong agreement with a trend toward better refractive outcomes using TK. The same IOL constant can be used for both K and TK.