Affiliation:
1. Ophthalmological Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Scuola Medica Salernitana, University of Salerno, 84081 Salerno, Italy
2. AOU San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi D’Aragona, 84131 Salerno, Italy
Abstract
Background/Objectives: To evaluate the advanced lens measurement approach (ALMA) formula accuracy using different lens constants available on the user group for laser interference biometry (ULIB) and IOL Con platforms. Methods: In this retrospective, comparative, case-series study, 150 eyes of 160 patients with previous myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) or laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), who underwent uneventful cataract surgery and IOL implantation, were examined. The ALMA formula was evaluated to calculate the refractive prediction error (PE), analysing four different categories of lens constants: both nominal and optimized A-Constant for SRKT, which are available on the ULIB and IOL Con platforms. An additional analysis was carried out in this study, evaluating if a decreased ULIB optimized constant (DUOC) with different fixed factors (−1.2 −1.3 −1.4 −1.5) could improve refractive outcomes. Median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ±1.00 diopters (D) of prediction error were measured as the main outcomes. Results: Comparing the lens factors available on ULIB and IOL Con platforms, the ALMA formula reported a lower MedAE and higher percentages of eyes with a refractive PE within 1.0 D using ULIB nominal constants (all p < 0.05). Using DUOC (−1.3), and there was a statistically significant improvement of both MedAE and of the percentages of eyes with PE within ±0.50 D with the ALMA method compared to nominal ULIB constants (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: The impact of different lens factors in the IOL power calculation after myopic LRS should be carefully evaluated. The ALMA formula, in the absence of optimized constants by zeroing the mean error, should be used by subtracting 1.3 from the optimized ULIB constants available on the IOL Con website. This finding suggests further studies to test which of these constants could work better with the other post-refractive surgery formulas.