1416
ARTICLE
Evaluation of total keratometry and its
accuracy for intraocular lens power
calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery
Li Wang, MD, PhD, Tatyana Spektor, MD, Rodrigo G. de Souza, MD, Douglas D. Koch, MD
Purpose: To compare the accuracy of total keratometry (TK)
and standard keratometry (K) from a swept-source optical
coherence tomography biometer for intraocular lens (IOL)
power calculation in eyes with previous corneal refractive
surgery.
Setting: Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston,
Texas, USA.
Design: Retrospective case series.
Methods: The differences between the TK and K and their as-
sociation with K were assessed. For IOL power calculation,
combinations of 1) K with Haigis, Haigis-L, and Barrett True-K,
and 2) TK with Haigis (Haigis-TK) were used. The mean
absolute error (MAE) and the percentages of eyes within
prediction errors of G 0.50 diopters (D), G 1.00 D, and G
2.00 D were calculated.
Results: The study comprised 129 eyes. For Haigis, Haigis-L,
Barrett True-K, and Haigis-TK, respectively, the MAEs were 0.72
R
adial keratotomy (RK), photorefractive keratectomy
(PRK), and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)
have been used for the correction of myopia, hyper-
opia, and astigmatism. These procedures create difficulties
in accurately calculating intraocular lens (IOL) power.1,2
There are two major causes of error in corneal power esti-
mation in these eyes: 1) because of the large variations in
corneal power within the central area of the cornea, it is
difficult for the standard keratometers or corneal topogra-
phers to obtain accurate anterior corneal curvature, and 2)
LASIK/PRK alters the ratio of the anterior to posterior
corneal radius of curvature, and the standard effective
refractive index of the cornea is no longer valid.3
With advances in technology, it is now possible to
measure the posterior corneal curvature. Theoretically,
Submitted: March 21, 2019 | Final revision submitted: April 22, 2019 | Accepted: May 14, 2019
From the Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Supported in part by Sid W. Richardson Foundation, Fort Worth, Texas, and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York, USA.
Corresponding author: Douglas D. Koch, MD, Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of Medicine, 6565 Fannin, NC205, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Email: dkoch@bcm.edu.
Q 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D, 0.61 D, 0.54 D, and 0.50 D in the myopic laser in situ
keratomileusis (LASIK)/photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) group,
and 0.74 D, 0.68 D, 0.71 D, and 0.70 D in hyperopic LASIK/PRK
group. For the radial keratotomy (RK) eyes, the MAEs were 0.66
D, 0.71 D, and 0.72 D for the Haigis, Barrett True-K, and Haigis-
TK formulas, respectively. In the myopic LASIK/PRK group, the
Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK produced significantly lower MAEs
than did Haigis (P < .05). In the hyperopic LASIK/PRK and RK
groups, there were no significant differences between the
formulas in MAEs and percentages of eyes within the above
prediction errors.
Conclusions: The performance of the combination of Haigis
and TK in refractive prediction was comparable with Haigis-L
and Barrett True-K in eyes with previous corneal refractive
surgery.
J Cataract Refract Surg 2019; 45:1416–1421 Q 2019 The Authors. Pub-
lished by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
determination of total corneal power calculated based on
both anterior and posterior corneal curvatures should
improve the accuracy in IOL power prediction. Optical
coherence tomography (OCT) can measure both anterior
and posterior corneal curvatures with high axial resolution.
Using high-resolution anterior segment OCT (RTVue, Op-
toVue, Inc.), Tang and et al.4 developed an OCT-based IOL
calculation formula. Promising results for the OCT-based
IOL formula have been reported in eyes with previous LA-
SIK, PRK, or RK.4–7 Scheimpflug camera–Placido topogra-
phers, such as the Pentacam (OCULUS, Inc., Germany), the
Galilei (Ziemer Opthalmic Systems AG), and the Sirius
(Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici), also offer total corneal
power values. In unoperated eyes, these values have been
shown to produce accurate refractive outcomes.8
0886-3350
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.05.020
 TOTAL K IN POST-REFRACTIVE EYES
Savini et al.9 assessed the accuracy of total corneal power
values obtained from the Galilei in eyes that had previous
myopic corneal excimer laser surgery.
Total keratometry (TK) from a swept-source OCT (SS-
OCT) biometer (IOLMaster 700, Carl Zeiss Meditec AG)
is a new measurement that combines telecentric keratome-
try and SS-OCT technology for the assessment of anterior
and posterior corneal curvatures. According to the manu-
facturer, TK is lens-constant compatible for User Group
for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB),A and the existing
standard formulas and IOL constants can be applied. Com-
parison of the TK and the standard K and their accuracy for
IOL power calculation have not been investigated and
reported.
This study was designed to compare the TK and standard
K and their accuracy for IOL power calculation in eyes with
previous LASIK, PRK, or RK.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Patients
Institutional Review Board approval (Baylor College of Medi-
cine, Houston, Texas) was obtained for this study. Consecutive
cases that had previous corneal refractive surgery and had un-
dergone cataract surgery at the Cullen Eye Institute (Baylor Col-
lege of Medicine, Houston, Texas) between June 2016 and
January 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria
were patients with 1) available TK data from the SS-OCT bio-
meter scans taken before the cataract surgery, 2) no complica-
tions during or after the cataract surgery, 3) manifest
refraction performed at 3 weeks or later after the cataract sur-
gery, and 4) corrected distance visual acuity of 20/40 or better
at 3 weeks or later after cataract surgery.
All cataract surgeries were performed by one surgeon
(D.D.K.) using a temporal clear corneal incision, phacoemulsifi-
cation, and implantation of IOLs in the capsular bag. Preopera-
tively, various methods were used for corneal power estimation,
and the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
post-refractive IOL calculatorB was used for IOL power calcula-
tion. The IOL power to be implanted was determined by the
surgeon. Eyes were categorized into three groups depending
on their previous corneal refractive surgery: myopic LASIK/
PRK, hyperopic LASIK/PRK, and RK.
Standard Keratometry and Total Keratometry
The SS-OCT biometer has two ways of determining corneal power
as follows:
1. Standard keratometry (K): the standard K is calculated based
on the anterior corneal curvature from measuring reflections
of 18 light-emitting diodes, combined with telecentric kera-
tometry; and
2. Total keratometry (TK): the TK is calculated based on the ante-
rior corneal curvature, posterior corneal curvature, and corneal
thickness derived from combination of telecentric keratometry
and the OCT technology. The calculated TK values are modi-
fied to match the K values, so that existing IOL calculation for-
mulas and IOL constants can be used.
For comparison between the TK and K, the corneal curvature
values in millimeters were converted to values in diopters (D) us-
ing a corneal refractive index of 1.3315. Differences between the
TK and K were calculated in each group.
1417
Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Methods
For IOL power calculation, a combination of IOL formulas and
corneal power values were used as follows:
1. Haigis C anterior K: the standard Haigis formula10 is proposed
for eyes without previous corneal refractive surgery. The Haigis
formula was used in this study to serve as a scenario when the
laser vision correction status of the eye was not identified
correctly by the examiner during the biometry examination;
that is, the laser vision correction was selected by the user as
“untreated” before the ocular biometry scan.
2. Haigis-L C anterior K: the Haigis-L formula was designed for
eyes with previous myopic11 or hyperopicC LASIK/PRK. With
the Haigis-L formula, the K value measured with the SS- OCT
biometer was modified and then used for IOL power
calculation.
3. Barrett True-K C anterior K: the Barrett True-K formulaD was
developed for eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.
The Barrett True-K formula uses measured keratometry and
change in refraction (DMR) induced by the refractive surgery.
The True-K No History formula can be used when data for
DMR are not available. In this study, the standard K was
used with the Barrett True-K No History formula. In RK
eyes, as recommended by Dr. Barrett,E manifest refraction ob-
tained before the cataract surgery was used as the post-RK
refraction; and
4. Haigis C TK (Haigis-TK): the TK was used with the standard
Haigis formula.
Refractive Prediction Error
The lens constants from the ULIB websiteA were used for all IOLs.
With each formula, the predicted refraction for the implanted IOL
power was recorded. The refractive prediction error (RPE) was
calculated by subtracting the predicted refraction from the actual
postoperative refraction. A negative RPE indicated a postoperative
refractive result that was more myopic than predicted by the indi-
vidual formula.
The mean numerical error, mean absolute error (MAE), and
median absolute error (MedAE) were calculated. The percentage
of eyes with RPEs within G 0.50 D, G1.00 D, and G 2.00 D
were computed for each method.
Statistical Analysis
Sample size was calculated to determine the number of eyes
required to detect a difference of half of the standard deviation
of differences in RPEs between groups. With a significance level
of 5% and a test power of 80%, 32 eyes are required in each
group. In this study, 32 to 53 eyes were enrolled in the three
groups.
Data distribution for normality was checked using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. To account for the correlation between
pairs of eyes for each individual, a regression analysis with gener-
alized estimating equations was performed to assess the associa-
tion between the standard K and the differences between the TK
and K. To assess whether the mean numerical errors produced
by various methods were significantly different from zero, one
sample t test or Wilcoxon one-sample signed-rank test was used,
depending on the data distribution. The Friedman test was used
to compare the MAEs using different formulas. The Cochran Q
test was performed to compare the number of eyes within G0.5
D, G1.0 D, and G2.0 D of RPE. If a significant difference was ob-
tained between formulas, the post hoc analysis with the Wilcoxon
test or McNemar test was used for pairwise comparisons. The
Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple tests. SPSS for
Windows software (version 24.0, IBM Corp.) was used for
Volume 45 Issue 10 October 2019
1418 TOTAL K IN POST-REFRACTIVE EYES

Table 1. Summary of demographic and biometric data obtained from the swept-source optical coherence tomography
biometer.
Myopic LASIK/PRK (53 Eyes) Hyperopic LASIK/PRK (32 Eyes) RK (44 Eyes)

Parameter Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD Range Mean ± SD Range

Age (y) 64.5 G 7.1 45, 77 68.6 G 4.6 60, 80 65.7 G 6.4 50, 78
Standard keratometry (mm) 8.31 G 0.47 7.69, 9.81 7.52 G 0.28 6.93, 8.24 9.06 G 0.79 7.43, 10.63
Total keratometry (mm) 8.40 G 0.52 7.72, 10.15 7.51 G 0.29 6.94, 8.24 9.02 G 0.78 7.48, 10.50
Anterior chamber depth (mm) 3.40 G 0.43 2.42, 4.38 2.99 G 0.35 2.33, 3.44 3.34 G 0.33 2.76, 4.01
Lens thickness (mm) 4.52 G 0.39 3.60, 5.30 4.66 G 0.35 3.99, 5.33 4.54 G 0.36 3.94, 5.38
Axial length (mm) 25.72 G 1.64 22.76, 30.37 23.09 G 0.96 21.47, 24.68 25.61 G 1.51 22.95, 29.57
Implanted IOL power (D) 20.6 G 3.2 10.5, 33.0 21.5 G 2.8 16.0, 26.5 24.7 G 5.5 8.0, 34.0

IOL Z intraocular lens; LASIK Z laser in situ keratomileusis; PRK Z photorefractive keratectomy; RK Z radial keratotomy

statistical analysis, and a probability of less than 5% (P ! .05) was
considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the demographic and biometric data. A total
of 129 eyes were included: 53 eyes of 37 patients with pre-
vious myopic LASK/PRK, 32 eyes of 23 patients with hyper-
opic LASIK/PRK, and 44 eyes of 32 patients with RK. The
implanted IOL models include: ZCB00, ZCTx, ZXR00, and
ZXTx (Johnson & Johnson Surgical Vision, Inc.), and
SN60WF and SN6ATx (Alcon laboratories, Inc.).
Difference Between TK and T
Table 2 and Figure 1 show the differences between TK and
K. The mean differences were 0.39 D (P ! .05), C0.06 D
(P O .05), and C0.15 D (P ! .05) in eyes with previous
myopic LASIK/PRK, hyperopic LASIK/PRK, and RK,
respectively. There were moderately positive associations
between the K and the difference between TK and K in
eyes with previous myopic LASIK/PRK and hyperopic LA-
SIK/PRK (correlation coefficient r Z 0.51 and 0.45, respec-
tively, both P ! .05).
Accuracy of TK and K in Refractive Prediction
Table 3 shows the RPEs. In eyes with previous myopic
LASIK/PRK, the Haigis produced hyperopic prediction
errors, and the Haigis-L produced myopic prediction er-
rors (both P ! .05). The MAEs ranged from 0.50 to 0.72
D, and the Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK had signifi-
cantly lower MAEs than did Haigis (both P ! .05).
The percentage of eyes with an RPE within G0.5 D
ranged from 35.8% to 58.5%. The Barrett True-K had a
significantly higher percentage of eyes within G1.0 D
of RPE than did Haigis (P ! .05). There were no signif-
icant differences in MAE and the percentage of eyes with
RPEs within G0.5 D, G1.0 D, and G2.0 D between the
other formulas.
In eyes with previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK, the MAEs
ranged from 0.68 to 0.74 D. The percentage of eyes with a
RPE within G 0.5 D ranged from 43.8% to 56.3%. There
were no significant differences in MAE and the percentage
of eyes with RPEs within G0.5 D, G1.0 D, and G2.0 D be-
tween formulas.
In eyes with previous RK, the range of MAEs was 0.66
to 0.72 D. The percentage of eyes with an RPE within G
0.5 D ranged from 43.2% to 54.5%. There were no signif-
icant differences in MAE and the percentage of eyes with
RPEs within G0.5 D, G1.0 D, and G2.0 D between
formulas.
DISCUSSION
Although corneal refractive surgery produces excellent vi-
sual outcomes, it creates difficulties in accurately calcu-
lating IOL power, primarily because of incorrect
estimation of total corneal power. In this study, we evalu-
ated the TK from the SS-OCT biometer and its accuracy
for IOL power calculation in eyes with previous LASIK,
PRK, or RK. We chose the Haigis formula to evaluate TK
because this formula does not use corneal power to calcu-
late the effective lens position. TK values could therefore
be inserted directly into the formula without any
modification.
In this study, we found that in eyes with previous myopic
LASIK/PRK, the mean TK was significantly lower than

Table 2. Difference between the TK and K.

Parameter Myopic LASIK/PRK Hyperopic LASIK/PRK RK
Mean G SD (D) 0.39 G 0.26* 0.06 G 0.17 0.15 G 0.32*
Range (D) 1.12, 0.20 0.36, 0.47 1.15, 0.66
Correlation with K 0.51† 0.45† 0.09

K Z standard keratometry; LASIK Z laser in situ keratomileusis; PRK Z photorefractive keratectomy; RK Z radial keratotomy; TK Z total keratometry
*Significantly different from zero
†
Significant correlation between the standard K and the difference between TK and K (P ! .05 with Bonferroni correction)

Volume 45 Issue 10 October 2019

 TOTAL K IN POST-REFRACTIVE EYES
Figure 1. Scatterplot K versus difference between the TK and K in
eyes with previous myopic LASIK/PRK (top, correlation coefficient
r Z 0.51, P ! .05), hyperopic LASIK/PRK (middle, correlation coef-
ficient r Z 0.45, P ! .05), and RK (bottom, correlation coefficient
r Z 0.09, P O .05) (K Z standard keratometry; LASIK Z laser
in situ keratomileusis; PRK Z photorefractive keratectomy;
RK Z radial keratotomy; TK Z total keratometry).
mean K, and, with decreasing or flattening K, the TK had
increasingly lower values compared with K. In eyes with
previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK, there was no significant
difference between mean TK and K, and with increasing
or steepening K, the TK had increasingly higher values
compared with K. In eyes with previous RK, mean TK
was significantly higher than mean K, and there was no as-
sociation between the K and the differences between TK
and K.
The Haigis formula was originally developed based on
partial coherence interferometry (PCI) (IOLMaster, Carl
Zeiss Meditec AG).10 The corneal radius of curvature
measured by the PCI or SS-OCT biometer is used in
the Haigis formula for virgin eyes. In the Haigis-L for-
mula, which was developed for eyes with previous LA-
SIK/PRK, the corneal radius of curvature measured
with the PCI or SS-OCT biometer is modified, and this
1419
modified corneal radius of curvature is entered into the
standard Haigis formula.11,C Results from this study
showed that combination of the TK and standard Haigis
formula produced similar results in refractive prediction
as the Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formulas. The
Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formulas are among the
most accurate approaches for IOL power calculation in
eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. This indi-
cates that the TK values do not need to be modified
and can be used directly in the standard Haigis formula
in LASIK, PRK, and RK eyes.
In previous studies that investigated the accuracy of IOL
power calculation formulas in eyes with prior myopic or hy-
peropic LASIK/RPK,6,12–14 the Haigis-L formula produced
MedAEs of 0.26 D to 0.62 D, and 40.2% to 69.0% of eyes
within G0.5 D of RPE. In this study, the Haigis-L formula
yielded MedAEs of 0.51 D to 0.53 D, and 45.3% to 46.9% of
eyes within G0.5 D of RPE. Our results with the Haigis-L
formula are consistent with the findings reported in the
literature.
With the Barrett True-K No History formula, in eyes
with previous myopic LASIK/PRK, Abulafia et al.13 and
Wang et al.6 reported MedAEs of 0.41 D and 0.42 D,
and 63.3% and 58.7% of eyes, respectively, within G0.5
D of RPE. In this study, we found a MedAE of 0.37 D
and 52.8% of eyes within G0.5 D of RPE. In eyes with
previous hyperopic LASIK/PRK, Hamill et al.15 reported
a MedAE of 0.60 D and 42.9% of eyes within G0.5 D
of RPE. In this study, we found a MedAE of 0.49 D
and 50% of eyes within G0.5 D of RPE. In eyes with pre-
vious RK, Ma et al.7 reported MedAEs of 0.56 D to 0.71
D, and 29% to 43% of eyes within G0.5 D of RPE. In this
study, we found a MedAE of 0.55 D and 43.2% of eyes
within G0.5 D of RPE.
Limitations of this study include: 1) Because of the low
number of eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery
and subsequent cataract surgery, we included both eyes
of some patients. Regression analysis with generalized
estimating equations was performed to account for the
correlation between pairs of eyes for each individual.
2) Different IOL types were included. 3) The ULIB-
optimized lens constants were used for IOL power calcu-
lation, and lens constant optimization was not per-
formed in each group. This represents the clinical
scenario in that surgeons generally do not optimize their
lens constants for eyes with previous corneal refractive
surgery.
In summary, our results showed that the differences be-
tween TK and K were positively correlated with the K in
eyes with previous myopic LASIK/PRK and hyperopic LA-
SIK/PRK. The Barrett True-K and Haigis-TK produced
significantly lower MAEs than did Haigis in myopic LA-
SIK/PRK group. The accuracy of Haigis-TK in IOL power
calculation was comparable to those with Haigis-L and Bar-
rett True-K in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery.
Further studies are desirable to evaluate the accuracy of TK
in IOL power calculation in multicenter studies in a larger
population.
Volume 45 Issue 10 October 2019
1420 TOTAL K IN POST-REFRACTIVE EYES

Table 3. Refractive prediction errors using User Group for Laser Interference Biometry lens constantsA and percentage of
eyes within certain ranges of prediction errors.
Parameter Haigis10 Haigis-L11,C Barrett True-KD Haigis-TK
Myopic LASIK/PRK
MNE (D) G SD C0.57 G 0.68* 0.42 G 0.61* 0.02 G 0.73 C0.19 G 0.59
Range (D) 0.81, C2.87 1.66, C0.76 1.48, C3.04 0.83, C1.78
MAE (MedAE) (D) 0.72 (0.65)† 0.61 (0.53) 0.54 (0.37)† 0.50 (0.44)†
G0.5 D (%) 35.8 45.3 52.8 58.5
G1.0 D (%) 73.6† 81.1 92.5† 90.6
G2.0 D (%) 98.1 100.0 98.1 100.0
Hyperopic LASIK/PRK
MNE (D) G SD 0.28 G 1.01 0.04 G 0.99 0.04 G 1.04 0.22 G 1.03
Range (D) 2.74, C3.19 2.43, C3.34 2.48, C3.66 2.83, C3.37
MAE (MedAE) (D) 0.74 (0.54) 0.68 (0.51) 0.71 (0.49) 0.70 (0.44)
G0.5 D (%) 43.8 46.9 50.0 56.3
G1.0 D (%) 75.0 81.3 81.3 81.3
G2.0 D (%) 93.8 93.8 93.8 90.6
RK
MNE (D) G SD C0.27 G 0.87 N/A C0.33 G 0.86 C0.41 G 0.88*
Range (D) 1.98, C2.91 N/A 1.42, C2.72 1.35, C3.14
MAE (MedAE) (D) 0.66 (0.47) N/A 0.71 (0.55) 0.72 (0.57)
G0.5 D (%) 54.5 N/A 43.2 43.2
G1.0 D (%) 75.0 N/A 70.5 72.7
G2.0 D (%) 97.7 N/A 97.7 97.7

K Z standard keratometry; LASIK Z laser in situ keratomileusis; MAE Z mean absolute error; MedAE Z median absolute error; MNE Z mean numerical error;
N/A Z not applicable; PRK Z photorefractive keratectomy; RK Z radial keratotomy; TK Z total keratometry
*Significantly different from zero (P ! .05 with Bonferroni correction)
†
Significant difference between formulas (P ! .05 with Bonferroni correction)

4. Tang M, Li Y, Huang D. An intraocular lens power calculation formula based

WHAT WAS KNOWN
 It is difficult to predict accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power
in eyes with previous corneal refract surgery.
 The Barrett True-K and Haigis-L formulas are among the
most accurate and popular IOL power calculation formulas
used in laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), photorefractive
keratectomy (PRK), and radial keratotomy (RK) eyes.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
 Total keratometry (TK) from the swept-source optical
coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer (IOLMaster 700,
Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) was a new measurement of total
corneal power that combined telecentric keratometry and
SS-OCT technology.
 In LASIK, PRK, and RK eyes, the combination of the directly
measured TK and the standard Haigis formula produced
refractive prediction accuracy comparable to the regression-
based Haigis-L and Barrett True-K formulas.
REFERENCES
1. Koch DD, Liu JF, Hyde LL, Rock RL, Emery JM. Refractive complications of
cataract surgery after radial keratotomy. Am J Ophthalmol 1989; 108:676–
682
2. Gimbel HV, Sun R. Accuracy and predictability of intraocular lens power
calculation after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg
2001; 27:571–576
3. Wang L, Mahmoud AM, Anderson BL, Koch DD, Roberts CJ. Total corneal
power estimation: ray tracing method versus gaussian optics formula.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52:1716–1722
on optical coherence tomography: a pilot study. J Refract Surg 2010;
26:430–437
5. Tang M, Wang L, Koch D, Li Y, Huang D. Intraocular lens power calculation
after previous myopic laser vision correction based on corneal power
measured by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract
Refract Surg 2012; 38:589–594
6. 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; 122:2443–2449
7. Ma JX, Tang M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Huang D, Koch DD. Comparison of
newer IOL power calculation methods for eyes with previous radial keratot-
omy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016; 57:162–168
8. Savini G, Negishi K, Hoffer KJ, Schiano Lomoriello D. Refractive outcomes
of intraocular lens power calculation using different corneal power mea-
surements with a new optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2018;
44:701–708
9. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Barboni P. Intraocular lens po-
wer calculation using a Placido disk-Scheimpflug tomographer in eyes that
had previous myopic corneal excimer laser surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg
2018; 44:935–941
10. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of immersion ultra-
sound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens
calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;
238:765–773
11. Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia:
Haigis-L formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34:1658–1663
12. 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; 118:940–944
13. Abulafia A, Hill WE, Koch DD, Wang L, Barrett GD. Accuracy of the Barrett
True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ kerat-
omileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cataract Refract
Surg 2016; 42:363–369
14. Fram NR, Masket S, Wang L. Comparison of intraoperative aberrometry,
OCT-based IOL formula, Haigis-L, and Masket formulae for IOL power
calculation after laser vision correction. Ophthalmology 2015; 122:1096–
1101

Volume 45 Issue 10 October 2019

 TOTAL K IN POST-REFRACTIVE EYES 1421

15. Hamill EB, Wang L, Chopra HK, Hill W, Koch DD. Intraocular lens power cal- Disclosures: Dr. Wang is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
culations in eyes with previous hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis or pho-
Dr. Koch is a consultant to Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Carl Zeiss Meditec
torefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43:189–194
AG, and Johnson & Johnson Vision, Inc. None of the other authors has
OTHER CITED MATERIAL a financial or proprietary interest in any material or methods mentioned.
A. User Group for Laser Interference Biometry. Available at: http://ocusoft
.de/ulib/. Accessed June 25, 2019
B. American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. Post-Refractive IOL
Calculator. Available at: http://iolcalc.ascrs.org/. Accessed June 25, 2019
First author:
C. Haigis W, Goes F, “IOL calculation after laser refractive surgery for hyperopia Li Wang, MD, PhD
with current measurements,” presented at the XXVI Congress of the Euro-
pean Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons, Berlin, Germany,
Cullen Eye Institute, Baylor College of
September 2008 Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
D. Barrett GD. Barrett True K formula for prior myopic or hyperopic LASIK/PRK.
Available at: http://www.apacrs.org/barrett_true_K_universal_2/. Accessed
June 25, 2019
E. Barrett GD, personal communication, November 25, 2016

Volume 45 Issue 10 October 2019