Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Dec;257(12):2677-2682.
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04443-7. Epub 2019 Sep 5.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Sabong Srivannaboon et al. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019 Dec.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Cataract surgery; Intraocular lens; Keratometry; Power calculation; Refractive outcomes; Total keratometry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015 Jan 13;56(2):827-35 - PubMed
    1. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012 Apr;38(4):589-94 - PubMed
    1. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jan;37(1):50-62 - PubMed
    1. Ophthalmology. 2011 Jun;118(6):1221; author reply 1221-2 - PubMed
    1. Acta Ophthalmol. 2017 Sep;95(6):e486-e494 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources