Comparing Ultrasound Biometry with Partial Coherence Interferometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Randomized Study

Raymond, Simon; Favilla, Ian; Santamaria, Linda

doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3087

Cited by 38 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These data showed the relatively low contribution of error from the axial length source, while the achievement of 0.01 ± 0.20 D error in spectacle plane in 95% of observations has not yet been reached. The reported number of predictions that fall within ±0.5 D, ± 1.0 D, ± 2.0 D of the expected outcome were reached in 55.6-69% [14,20,21]; 87-95.7% [14,20,21,23] and 99.9-100% [20,21] of cases obtained with PCLI biometry. When two methods were compared by Bland-Altman analysis, they demonstrated acceptable agreement for clinical purposes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…This would be acceptable for clinical purposes, according to the reported number of predictions that fall within ±0.5 D, ± 1.0 D, ± 2.0 D of the expected outcome in 45.5-92% [14,15,20,21]; 77.3-93.5% [14,[20][21][22][23] and 98.4-100% [20][21][22] of cases obtained with ultrasound biometry, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It is generally accepted that the PCLI technique used by the IOLMaster offers superior accuracy and reproducibility of AL measurement in comparison to ultrasound enabling better prediction of the refractive outcome for all tested IOL power formulas [3,5,18,19]. However, the only published randomized clinical trial study comparing PCLI to AUS on an intentionto-treat basis, revealed this was true only if eyes which could not be measured by the IOLMaster were excluded [20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation

Rončević¹,

Bušić²,

Čima³

et al. 2010

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on excellent repeatability of the Lenstar and acceptable repeatability of applanation ultrasound, two techniques may be used interchangeably. The predicted refractive error of ± 0.20 D in 95% of the observations has never been achieved. Optical low-coherence reflectometry might become a new standard method for biometric measurement needed for intraocular lens-power calculation in patients with cataract.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation

Rončević¹,

Bušić²,

Čima³

et al. 2010

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, a precise IOL calculation is not easy, depending on several parameters, such as axial length (AL) [2][3][4][5][6], anterior chamber depth [3,5], keratometry [2][3][4][5] or the lens formula [2][3][4][5]. Accurate AL measurement has been demonstrated to be the main factor for IOL power calculation [2][3][4][5][6], highlight related with the ocular biometry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accurate AL measurement has been demonstrated to be the main factor for IOL power calculation [2][3][4][5][6], highlight related with the ocular biometry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change in Axial Length Pre and Post Cataract Surgery Measured with IOL Master

López¹,

López²,

Juan³

et al. 2016

J Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Cataract surgery with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation tries to get a refractive result nearby to the optic emmetropia. So an accurate IOL power calculation is mandatory, and axial length (AL) measurement is one of the most influential parameter in this calculation. IOL Master is one of the most popular devices to measure AL, which uses the same group refractive index of the lens for all patients, independently of the cataract grade. But lens refractive index is higher as cataract grade increases. Nowadays cataract tends to be operated earlier, so moderate cataracts are the most extracted in clinical practice. Therefore, it is important to study the influence of moderate lens opacity in AL measurements. The objective of this study was to compare the AL value measures with IOL Master, before and after uncomplicated cataract surgery in patients with moderate cataracts. Material and methods:This study included 153 eyes of 105 patients (67.51 ± 13.56 years old) undergoing uncomplicated cataract surgery. Lens opacity was determined with the LOCSIII scale and AL was measured using optical biometry (IOL Master; Carl Zeiss Meditec) before and one month after intervention. Intraoperative measurements (ultrasound time and fluid volume) were also registered.Results: Mean preoperative AL of 25.10 ± 3.19 mm (range 20.54 to 36.06; IC95% 24.59 to 25.60 mm) and postoperative of 24.88 ± 3.16 mm (IC 95% 24.37 to 25.39; range 20.43 to 35.79 mm). The mean AL difference before and after surgery was 0.19 ± 0.05 mm (p=0.549 ANOVA) with agreement limits from 0.09 to 0.29 mm. It was observed more difference in eyes with larger AL (r 2 =0.14 p<0.01). The average cataract grade in each category was: nuclear opacity 2.25 ± 1.00 (range 1 to 5) (p=0.564 ANCOVA), cortical opacity 2.04 ± 0.73 (range 0 to 4) (p=0.543 ANCOVA), posterior subcapsular opacity 0.44 ± 0.90 (range 0 to 4) (p=0.563 ANCOVA), and nuclear color 2.40 ± 1.05 (range 0 to 5) (p=0.558 ANCOVA), without statistical significant effect in the AL difference pre and after cataract surgery. The ultrasound time used during the surgery was 43 ± 29 seconds (p=0.525 ANCOVA) and the fluid volume was 4.73 ± 1.31 (p=0.560 ANCOVA) cubic centimeters without statistically significant relationship between these parameters and the difference in the AL measurement. Conclusions:The difference in AL measurement with IOL Master before and after cataract surgery in eyes with low grade of cataract should be related with IOL Master reproducibility especially in extreme-long eyes. Moderate cataract showed non-statistically effect on AL measurement with IOL Master biometry.

show abstract

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction using immersion ultrasound and optical biometry with and without formula optimization

Németh

Nagy

Berta

et al. 2012

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparing Ultrasound Biometry with Partial Coherence Interferometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Randomized Study

Cited by 38 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation

Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation

Change in Axial Length Pre and Post Cataract Surgery Measured with IOL Master

Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction using immersion ultrasound and optical biometry with and without formula optimization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About