Accuracy of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer for IOL Power Calculation and Comparison to IOLMaster

Savini, Giacomo; Hoffer, Kenneth J.; Shammas, H. John; Aramberri, Jaime; Huang, Jinhai; Barboni, Piero

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20170721-05

Cited by 52 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in contrast to our analysis, which compared the accuracy of power calculation based on the postoperative refractive results, this information was not available in this study. Recently, Savini et al [7] evaluated IOL power calculation using the OA-2000 device for third-generation formulas. They found a median absolute error ranging between 0.33 D (Holladay-1) and 0.35 D (SRK/T), which was greater than the median error in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have already evaluated the agreement of ocular measurements using the OA-2000 with the IOL-Master and the Lenstar [4][5][6]. However, there are scant data available regarding the accuracy of IOL power calculations using these three biometers [7]. The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the OA-2000 measurements, compared to the IOLMaster and Lenstar devices, using varies IOL calculation formulas, in patients following cataract extraction surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500

Reitblat¹,

Levy²,

Kleinmann

et al. 2018

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500

Reitblat¹,

Levy²,

Kleinmann

et al. 2018

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advanced technologies related to optical biometry such as partial coherence interferometry (PCI), optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR), and swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) have increased the precision of biometric measurements. [1][2][3][4] Modern IOL power calculation formulas have tried to improve the accuracy of their predictions of effective lens position (ELP). For the most part, this has been accomplished by increasing the number of variables-including preoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD, measured from epithelium to lens), lens thickness (LT), corneal diameter, preoperative refraction, and age-as well as basic variables such as axial length (AL) and corneal power (K).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. MethodsThe study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. ResultsThere were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. ConclusionsOverall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.

show abstract

“…There are two indispensable requirements that account for accurate prediction: precise ocular biometry [1][2][3][4] and proper IOL formulas [5][6][7] . For ocular biometry, axial length (AL) can be measured using devices based on ultrasonic principle (such as A-scan) 8 and devices based on optical principles (such as IOLMaster and Lenstar) 4,9 , and keratometry (K) values can be measured using keratometry and corneal topography [10][11][12][13][14] . For IOL formulas, there have been various formulas created and recommended since the 1960s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of four formulas for the intraocular lens power prediction

Hua

Qiu

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the accuracy of four formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction in cataractous eyes. METHODS In this prospective study, 51 eyes of 38 cataractous patients with an axial length (AL) between 24.0 and 26.0 mm were included. Preoperatively, Topolyzer, IOLMaster and A-scan were performed. At least 3 months after the surgery, subjective refraction was conducted. Haigis, SRK/T, Hoffer Q and Holladay 1 formulas based on ocular biometry from A-scan combining Topolyzer, IOLMaster combining Topolyzer and IOLMaster only were applied for IOL power prediction. RESULTS The four formulas based on biometry from IOLMaster combining Topolyzer and IOLMaster only performed better than those based on biometry from A-scan combining Topolyzer. Based on biometry from IOLMaster combining Topolyzer, Haigis formula had a mean NEs of -0.03 ± 0.71 D and a mean AEs of 0.53 ± 0.47 D, SRK/T formula had a mean NEs of 0.37 ± 0.72 D and a mean AEs of 0.63 ± 0.50 D, Hoffer Q formula had a mean NEs of 0.05 ± 0.62 D and a mean AEs of 0.43 ± 0.44 D, Holladay 1 formula had a mean NEs of 0.32 ± 0.63 D and a mean AEs of 0.54 ± 0.45 D. Based on biometry from IOLMaster only, Haigis formula had a mean NEs of 0.02 ± 0.54 D and a mean AEs of 0.41 ± 0.36 D, SRK/T formula had a mean NEs of 0.41 ± 0.54 D and a mean AEs of 0.52 ± 0.43 D, Hoffer Q formula had a mean NEs of 0.05 ± 0.58 D and a mean AEs of 0.36 ± 0.46 D, Holladay 1 formula had a mean NEs of 0.32 ± 0.45 D and a mean AEs of 0.43 ± 0.35 D. CONCLUSIONS Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas performed slightly better than SRK/T and Holladay 1 formulas. Therefore, for cataractous patients with moderate AL, all four formulas based the biometry from IOLMaster combining Topolyzer and IOLMaster only can be used for the prediction of IOL power, and the Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas are particularly recommended.

show abstract

Accuracy of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer for IOL Power Calculation and Comparison to IOLMaster

Abstract: The SS-OCT-based optical biometer investigated in the current study provides accurate measurements for IOL power calculation and seems to offer more predictable refractive results compared to the partial coherence interferometry IOLMaster. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):690-695.].

Cited by 52 publications

References 25 publications

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer

Comparison of four formulas for the intraocular lens power prediction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About