Abstract Purpose: To analyze the correspondence between refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes with non-toric intraocular lenses. Setting: Yeouido St. Mary hospital, Seoul, South Korea Design: Evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument. Methods: This retrospective study included 95 eyes of 95 patients. Corneal astigmatism was measured with an automated keratometer (RK-5, Canon) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam HR, Oculus). Refractive astigmatism was compared to keratometric astigmatism (based on anterior corneal measurements only), Equivalent K Reading and total corneal astigmatism (both based on anterior and posterior corneal measurements). Vector analysis was carried out by Næser’s polar value method. The accuracy was defined as the average magnitude of the vectorial difference in astigmatism (DA). Each corneal measurement was optimized in retrospect by a multiple linear regression equation between refractive and corneal astigmatism. Results: Keratometric astigmatism overestimated with-the-rule (WTR) refractive astigmatism and underestimated against-the-rule (ATR) refractive astigmatism. Several measurements based on both corneal surfaces values did not show any statistically significant difference with respect to refractive astigmatism. The mean corneal astigmatism by total corneal refractive power (TCRP) at 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) produced the lowest mean arithmetic DA and the highest percentage of eyes with a DA ≤0.50 diopter. After optimization, the accuracies of automated KA and TCRP 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) were similar. Conclusions: Total corneal astigmatism measured by the Scheimpflug tomography at 4.0 mm zone centered on pupil, accurately reflects the refractive astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. However, the accuracy of total corneal astigmatism is not different from automated KA after optimization.

Background: this retrospective study aimed to analyze the results of the combination of the Haigis formula and Total Keratometry (TK) to calculate the IOL power in eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery. Methods: The TK value provided by the IOL Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) was introduced into the Haigis formula; the mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes with a PE within ±0.25 D, ±0.5 D, ±0.75 D and ±1.00 D were calculated. Results: Ninety-three eyes of 93 patients with previous laser refractive surgery were evaluated. Two groups were defined: Group A included 51 previously myopic eyes, Group B included 42 previously hyperopic eyes. The mean PE in Group A was +0.09 ±0.44 D and 76.47% of eyes had a PE within ±0.50 D. In Group B the mean PE was -0.15 ±0.46 D and 66.67% of eyes had a PE within ±0.50 D. Discussion: The Haigis formula combined with TK is one of the most accurate available methods for IOL power calculation in eyes with prior myopic and hyperopic corneal refractive surgery. In such eyes the results are similar to or better than those reported in previous studies.