In the Journals

Adjusted keratometric readings help attain predictable postoperative refractive errors

Reducing preoperative keratometric readings by −1.19 D led to highly predictable postoperative refractive errors after cataract surgery in conjunction with Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, according to a study.

The prospective, interventional case series included 39 patients with Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy and cataract scheduled for phacoemulsification, IOL implantation and DSAEK.

Steep and flat keratometric readings values used to calculate IOL power were reduced by −1.19 D.

IOLs had a mean power of 23.22 D, and mean predicted and acquired refractions were −0.27 D and −0.23 D, respectively. Patients were followed up 6 months after surgery.

The postoperative refraction fell within ± 50 D, ± 1 D and ± 2 D of the predicted refraction in 55.5%, 83.3% and 100% of the assessed cases, respectively, according to the authors. Mean absolute prediction was 0.59 D.

The mean absolute prediction error would have been significantly higher had the IOL power been calculated using the true K readings, (P = .04), the study authors said.

Disclosure: The study authors report no relevant financial disclosures.

Reducing preoperative keratometric readings by −1.19 D led to highly predictable postoperative refractive errors after cataract surgery in conjunction with Descemet’s stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty, according to a study.

The prospective, interventional case series included 39 patients with Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy and cataract scheduled for phacoemulsification, IOL implantation and DSAEK.

Steep and flat keratometric readings values used to calculate IOL power were reduced by −1.19 D.

IOLs had a mean power of 23.22 D, and mean predicted and acquired refractions were −0.27 D and −0.23 D, respectively. Patients were followed up 6 months after surgery.

The postoperative refraction fell within ± 50 D, ± 1 D and ± 2 D of the predicted refraction in 55.5%, 83.3% and 100% of the assessed cases, respectively, according to the authors. Mean absolute prediction was 0.59 D.

The mean absolute prediction error would have been significantly higher had the IOL power been calculated using the true K readings, (P = .04), the study authors said.

Disclosure: The study authors report no relevant financial disclosures.