Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Keratoconus Eyes Comparing Keratometry, Total Keratometry, and Newer Formulae

& BULL; PURPOSE: To compare the utility of keratometry vs to-tal keratometry (TK) for intraocular lens power calcula-tions in eyes with keratoconus (KCN) using KCN and non-KCN formulae. & BULL; DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. & BULL; METHODS: This study was conducted at 2 academic centers and included 87 eyes in 67 patients who under-went cataract surgery between 2019 and 2021. Biometry measurements were obtained using a swept-source opti-cal coherence tomography biometer (IOL Master 700). Refractive prediction errors, including root mean square error (RMSE), were calculated for 13 formulae. These in-cluded 4 classical formulae (Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1 [H1], and SRK/T), 5 new formulae (NF) (Barrett Uni-versal II [BU2], Cooke K6, EVO 2.0, Kane, and Pearl-DGS), 3 KCN formulae (BU2 KCN: M-PCA, BU2 KCN: P-PCA, and Kane KCN), and H1 with equivalent keratometry reading values (H1-EKR). Formulae were ranked by RMSE. Friedman analysis of variance with post hoc analysis and H-testing was used for statistical signif-icance testing. & BULL; RESULTS: KCN formulae had the lowest RMSEs in all eyes, and BU2 KCN:M-PCA performed the best among KCN formulae in all subgroups. In eyes with severe KCN, if TK values are unavailable, the BU2 KCN: P-PCA performed better than the top-ranked non-KCN for-mula (SRK/T). In eyes with nonsevere KCN, if TK val-ues are unavailable, EVO 2.0 K was statistically superior to the next competitor (Kane K). H1-EKR had the high-est RMSE. & BULL; CONCLUSIONS: KCN formulae and TK are useful for intraocular lens power calculations in KCN eyes, espe-cially in eyes with severe KCN. The BU2 KCN: M-PCA using TK values performed best for eyes with all severities of KCN. For eyes with nonsevere KCN, the EVO 2.0 TK or K can also be used. (Am J Ophthal-mol 2023;253: 206-214. & COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)