Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The predictive accuracy of Barrett toric calculator using measured posterior corneal astigmatism derived from swept source-OCT and Scheimpflug camera

Eye volume 38, pages 132–137 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the performance of Barrett toric calculator incorporated with measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam HR versus predicted PCA.

Methods

The predicted residual astigmatism using Barrett toric IOL calculator with predicted PCA, measured PCA from IOL Master 700 and measured PCA from Pentacam were calculated with the preoperative keratometry and intended IOL axis with modification. The vector analysis was performed to calculate the mean absolute prediction error (MAE), the centroid of the prediction error and the percentage of eyes with a prediction error within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D.

Results

In 57 eyes of 57 patients with mean age of 70.42 ± 10.75 years, the MAE among the three calculation methods were 0.59 ± 0.38 D (Predicted PCA), 0.60 ± 0.38 D (Measured PCA from IOL Master 700) and 0.60 ± 0.36 D (Measured PCA from Pentacam) with no significant difference, either in the whole sample, the WTR eyes and the ATR eyes (F = 0.078, 0.306 and 0.083, p = 0.925, 0.739 and 0.920, respectively). Measured PCA obtained from IOL Master 700 resulted in one level reduction (from Tn to Tn-1) in 49.12% eyes in cylindrical model selection, while measured PCA obtained from Pentacam resulted in one level reduction of toric model selection in 18.18% eyes.

Conclusion

The present study suggested that the incorporation of measured PCA values derived from IOL Master 700 and Pentacam produce comparable clinical outcome with the predicted PCA mode in Barrett toric calculator.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Clinical outcomes of the toric IOL implantation.
Fig. 2
Fig. 3: Cumulative histograms of prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, ±1.00 D and ±1.50 D for the three calculation methods.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The original dataset of the study is available with reasonable request by contacting the corresponding author Dr. Bu Shaochong through email at bushaochong@163.com.

References

  1. Visser N, Bauer NJ, Nuijts RM. Toric intraocular lenses: historical overview, patient selection, IOL calculation, surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:624–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee BS, Onishi AC, Chang DF. Comparison of rotational stability and repositioning rates of 2 presbyopia-correcting and 2 monofocal toric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:622–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Warwick A, Porteous A, Saw VPJ. Visual and autorefraction outcomes following toric intraocular lens insertion without calculation of posterior corneal astigmatism in the UK National Health Service. Eye (Lond). 2020;34:2082–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abulafia A, Barrett GD, Kleinmann G, Ofir S, Levy A, Marcovich AL, et al. Prediction of refractive outcomes with toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:936–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Savini G, Naeser K. An analysis of the factors influencing the residual refractive astigmatism after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56:827–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Koch DD, Ali SF, Weikert MP, Shirayama M, Jenkins R, Wang L. Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:2080–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Park DY, Lim DH, Hwang S, Hyun J, Chung TY. Comparison of astigmatism prediction error taken with the Pentacam measurements, Baylor nomogram, and Barrett formula for toric intraocular lens implantation. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17:156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Abulafia A, Koch DD, Wang L, Hill WE, Assia EI, Franchina M, et al. New regression formula for toric intraocular lens calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42:663–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Skrzypecki J, Sanghvi Patel M, Suh LH. Performance of the Barrett Toric Calculator with and without measurements of posterior corneal curvature. Eye (Lond). 2019;33:1762–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Holladay JT, Wilcox RR, Koch DD, Wang L. Astigmatism analysis and reporting of surgically induced astigmatism and prediction error. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:799–812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schallhorn SC, Hettinger KA, Pelouskova M, Teenan D, Venter JA, Hannan SJ, et al. Effect of residual astigmatism on uncorrected visual acuity and patient satisfaction in pseudophakic patients. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:991–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang S, Byun YS, Kim HS, Chung SH. Comparative accuracy of Barrett Toric Calculator with and without posterior corneal astigmatism measurements and the Kane Toric Formula. Am J Ophthalmol. 2021;231:48–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang L, Koch DD. Comparison of accuracy of a toric calculator with predicted vs measured posterior corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49:29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kane JX, Connell B. A comparison of the accuracy of 6 modern toric intraocular lens formulas. Ophthalmology. 2020;127:1472–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Langenbucher A, Szentmary N, Cayless A, Casaza M, Weisensee J, Hoffmann P, et al. Surgically induced astigmatism after cataract surgery - a vector analysis. Curr Eye Res. 2022;47:1279–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sheoran K, Arya SK, Bansal RK, Jinagal J, Jha UP. Surgically induced astigmatism and posterior corneal curvature changes following phacoemulsification. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022;70:406–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, Singh P, Muller M, Kohnen T. Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;178:58–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, Kiraly L. Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40:318–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kose B. Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based topography measurements of posterior corneal curvature. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022;48:185–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construction Project (TJYXZDXK-037A), Science & Technology Development Fund of Tianjin Education Commission for Higher Education (2020KJ179) and the grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81900846).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Xiaotong Yang, Yuanfeng Jiang.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tianjin Key Laboratory of Retinal Functions and Diseases, Tianjin Branch of National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Disease, Eye Institute and School of Optometry, Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital, Tianjin, China

    Xiaotong Yang, Yuanfeng Jiang, Song Lin, Xiaomei Bai, Yufan Yin, FangYu Zhao, Jun Yang, Fang Tian, Xiteng Chen, Jingli Liang & Shaochong Bu

Authors
  1. Xiaotong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuanfeng Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Song Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xiaomei Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yufan Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. FangYu Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jun Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fang Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xiteng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jingli Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Shaochong Bu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XTY is responsible for data collection and drafting the manuscript. YFJ is responsible for data analysis and interpretation. Ms XMB and Ms YFY are responsible for administrative support and creating the artworks and tables. JY and FYZ are responsible for reviewing the data and critical review the interpretation. SL is responsible for patient investigation. FT is responsible for managing the patients and performing the operation. XTC and JLL is responsible for writing the proposal for research funding and administration. SCB is responsible for project coordination, critical review of the manuscript and finalizing the submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaochong Bu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

41433_2023_2646_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary Table 1: Prediction error of spherical equivalence (SE) using predicted PCA and measured PCA obtained by IOL Master 700

Supplementary Figure 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, X., Jiang, Y., Lin, S. et al. The predictive accuracy of Barrett toric calculator using measured posterior corneal astigmatism derived from swept source-OCT and Scheimpflug camera. Eye 38, 132–137 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02646-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-023-02646-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links