Eyetemis Analysis Of Spherical Equivalent Prediction After Triple Dmek Using Different Measurements Of Corneal Power
Published 2026 - 44th Congress of the ESCRS
Reference: PP11.14 | Type: Free paper | DOI: 10.82333/3g42-ba89
Authors: Prof. Dr Ugo De Sanctis* 1 , Dr Paolo Caselgrandi 2 , Dr Giovanni Neri 2 , Chiara Oliveri 2 , Prof. Michele Reibaldi 2
1Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin,Eye Clinic, City of Health and Science Hospital,Turin,Italy;De Sanctis Eye Clinic,Turin,Italy, 2Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin,Eye Clinic, City of Health and Science Hospital,Turin,Italy
Purpose
The refractive outcome after phacoemulsification, IOL implantation, and DMEK (triple DMEK) in eyes with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) is influenced by errors in corneal power estimation. In this study, different methods for measuring corneal power for IOL calculation were used, and spherical equivalent prediction errors (SEQ-PE) after triple DMEK were compared using the Eyetemis analysis tool.
Setting
Single academic institution.
Methods
This retrospective cohort study included consecutive eyes with FECD that underwent triple DMEK with implantation of single model IOL. Manifest refraction was measured 6–12 months after surgery. The predicted SEQ was calculated using the Haigis formula in combination with standard keratometry (SK) from the IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), simulated keratometry (SimK), and total corneal refractive power (TCRP) from the Pentacam HR (Oculus). SEQ-PE mean values (difference between postoperative and predicted SEQ) were compared using the Eyetemis analysis tool to assess trueness, precision, and accuracy of IOL power calculation. Additionally, the proportion of eyes within ±0.25D, ±0.50D, ±0.75D, and ±1.00D of the predicted SEQ was evaluated.
Results
A total of 102 eyes from 77 patients were included. Mean corneal power was 43.67 ± 1.54 D for SK, 43.39 ± 1.49 D for SimK, and 43.24 ± 1.60 D for TCRP (SK vs TCRP, p = 0.05). The arithmetic SEQ-PE was significantly different from zero for each method and significantly different among methods (p < 0.05). It was +0.58 D for SK, +0.29 D for SimK, and +0.15 D for TCRP. In terms of precision, SEQ-PE was significantly better for SK (0.57 D) and SimK (0.61 D) compared with TCRP (0.75 D). The absolute SEQ-PE was significantly lower for SimK (0.63 D; p < 0.01) compared with SK (0.72 D) and TCRP (0.73 D). The proportion of eyes within ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D of the predicted SEQ did not differ significantly among methods.
Conclusions
In eyes with FECD scheduled for triple DMEK, corneal power measured with the TCRP and SimK from Pentacam is lower compared with the SK from IOLMaster. When TCRP or SimK is used for IOL calculation, postoperative hyperopic error may be reduced. Moreover, Eyetemis analysis suggests that corneal power measurement using Pentacam SimK may improve the accuracy of IOL power calculation.