The Impact Of The Integrated K Method On The Accuracy Of The Barrett Toric Calculator
Published 2024
- 42nd Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PO443
| Type: Free paper
| DOI:
10.82333/07m0-h584
Authors:
Irit Bahar* 1
, Olga Reitblat 2
, Rita Zlatkin 2
, Gal Harel 3
, Ruti Sella 4
1Faculty of Medicine,Tel Aviv University,Tel Aviv,Israel;Rabin Medical Center,Petach Tikva,Israel, 2Rabin Medical Center,Petach Tikva,Israel;Faculty of Medicine,Tel Aviv University,Tel Aviv,Israel, 3Faculty of Medicine,Tel Aviv University,Tel Aviv,Israel;Meir Medical Center,Kfar-Saba,Israel, 4Faculty of Medicine,Tel Aviv University,Tel Aviv,Israel;Rabin Medical Center,Petach Tikva,Israel;Mayo Clinic,Rochester,United States
Purpose
To compare the accuracy of the Barrett Integrated K (IK) toric calculator with the standard Barrett toric calculator.
Setting
Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tikva, Israel.
Methods
Consecutive cases of patients who underwent cataract extraction with implantation of a toric intraocular lens at the Rabin Medical Center, Israel, were reviewed. Errors in predicted postoperative refractive astigmatism were calculated for the Barrett toric calculator using biometry measurements only and with the IK tool using biometry and tomography. Both methods were assessed with predicted and measured posterior corneal astigmatism (PPCA and MPCA, respectively).
Results
The study included 73 eyes of 59 patients. The mean centroid prediction error using PPCA 0.08±0.80D @ 78°) was significantly different compared with MPCA (0.07±0.80D @ 48°, p=0.016). In addition, a significant difference between IK-PPCA (0.06±0.80D @ 80°) and IK-MPCA (0.05±0.80D @ 38°) was found (p=0.023). The median absolute prediction error ranged from 0.55D using IK-PPCA to 0.60D using PPCA, with no significant differences between the four calculation versions. No significant differences were found between the calculators in the predictability rates within 0.50D, 0.75D and 1.00D. Analysis of one eye of each patient showed similar results.
Conclusions
The IK calculator yielded comparable outcomes to the standard Barrett calculator. Although differences in the mean centroid errors were found, they were clinically insignificant and predominantly seen in the axis of the predicted astigmatism error. These minor differences were mainly attributed to the incorporation of the MPCA in the calculation.