JKOS Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 0378-6471 2092-9374 Korean Ophthalmological Society 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.7.1059 jkos-56-1059 Original Article Comparison of the Postoperative Refractive Errors Measured by Ultrasound and Partial Coherence Interferometers after Phacovitrectomy ParkJu Hong M.D JeongSeong Young M.D KimMyung Mi M.D, PhD ChangWoo Hyok M.D, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea ￭ Address reprint requests to Woo Hyok Chang, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Yeungnam University Medical Center, #170 Hyeonchung-ro, Nam-gu, Daegu 705-703, Korea Tel: 82-53-620-3443, Fax: 82-53-626-5936 E-mail: changwh@ynu.ac.kr 08 2015 27 8 2015 56 7 1059 1064 29 01 2015 04 03 2015 04 06 2015 Copyright © 2015 Korean Ophthalmological Society 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Purpose:

To compare the accuracy of refractive outcome measured by Ultrascan® (Alcon, Fort Worth, TX, USA) and partial co-herence interferometers after phacovitrectomy.

 Methods:

We performed a retrospective study in 74 eyes of 74 patients who underwent phacovitrectomy. SRK-T formula was used to predict intraocular lens (IOL) power. The difference between the predicted and postoperative refractive outcomes for the 2 methodologies (Ultrascan® and IOL Master® [Zeiss, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany]) were compared. The predicted refractive out-come was defined as the estimated refractive error when the selected IOL was inserted.

 Results:

The axial length measured using IOL Master® was statistically longer than when measured using Ultrascan® (23.85 ±0.15 mm, 23.56 ± 0.15 mm, p < 0.001). Based on keratometry, statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was not observed. The postoperative refractive error was more accurate when using the IOL Master® than Ultrascan® (0.08 ± 0.74, 0.47 ± 0.69, p < 0.001). However, in cases of vitreous hemorrhage, the postoperative refractive error was 0.42 ± 0.49 with the IOL Master® and 0.07 ± 0.54 with the Ultrascan®.

 Conclusions:

Generally, IOL Master® is a more accurate method for calculating the IOL power prior to phacovitrectomy. However, in cases of vitreous hemorrhage, Ultrascan® appears superior to IOL Master® when calculating the IOL power.

 IOL Master® Phacovitrecotmy Refractive error Ultrasound References KoenigSBHanDPMielerWFCombined phacoemulsifica-tion and pars plana vitrectomyArch Opthalmol19901083624 ScharweyKPavlovicSJacobiKWCombined clear corneal pha-coemulsification, vitreoretinal surgery, and intraocular lens implantationJ Cataract Refract Surg1999256938 HanNSLeeSBKimYBJoYJResults of triple surgery: cataract extraction, intraocular lens implantation and vitrectomy for retinal detachmentJ Korean Ophthalmol Soc20044520416 GiersUEppleCComparison of A-scan device accuracyJ Cataract Refract Surg19901623542 FindleODrexlerWMenapaceRImproved prediction of in-traocular lens power using partial coherence interferometryJ Cataract Refract Surg2001278617 TehraniMKrummenauerFBlomEDickHBEvaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyesJ Cataract Refract Surg2003297416 ShioyaMOginoNShinjoUChange in postoperative refractive error when vitrectomy is added to intraocular lens implantationJ Cataract Refract Surg199723121720 KovácsIFerenczMNemesJIntraocular lens power calcu-lation for combined cataract surgery, vitrectomy and peeling of epi-retinal membranes for macular edemaActa Ophthalmol Scand2007858891 Falkner-RadlerCIBeneschTBinderSAccuracy of preoperative biometry in vitrectomy combined with cataract surgery for patients with epiretinal membranes and macular holes: results of a pro-spective controlled clinical trialJ Cataract Refract Surg200834175460 GuBYSagongMChangWHPhacovitrectomy versus vi-trectomy only for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment repairJ Korean Ophthalmol Soc20115253743 HurleyCBarryPCombined endocapsular phacoemulsification, pars plana vitrectomy, and intraocular lens implantationJ Cataract Refract Surg1996224626 AndroudiSAhmedMFioreTCombined pars plana vi-trectomy and phacoemulsification to restore visual acuity in pa-tients with chronic uveitisJ Cataract Refract Surg2005314728 HolladayJTPragerTCRuizRSImproving the predict-ability of intraocular lens power calculationsArch Ophthalmol198610453941 HaigisWLegeBMillerNSchneiderBComparison of im-mersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to HaigisGraefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol200023876573 RajanMSKeilhornIBellJAPartial coherence laser inter-ferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations, Eye (Lond)2002165526 AuffarthGUTetzMRBiazidYVölckerHEMeasuring anterior chamber depth with Orbscan Topography systemJ Cataract Refract Surg19972313515 ManvikarSRAllenDSteelDHOptical biometry in combined phacovitrectomyJ Cataract Refract Surg200935649 KunavisarutPPoopattanakulPIntaratedCPathanapitoonKAccuracy and reliability of IOL master and A-scan immersion bio-metry in silicone oil-filled eyesEye (Lond)20122613448 ShinJAChungSKComparison of the refractive results measured by ultrasound and partial coherence interferometersJ Korean Ophthalmol Soc2013547237 ShinDHLimDHYouJYFormula comparison for intra-ocular lens power calculation using IOL master and ultrasound for the ZCB00 IOLJ Korean Ophthalmol Soc20145552733 Figures and Tables

Linear regression analysis of postoperative and predictive refraction. IOL = intraocular lens.

Bland-Altman analysis of postoperative and predictive refraction. IOL = intraocular lens. * Average between predictive and postoperative refraction; † Predictive refraction minus postoperative refraction.

Demographics of the patients

Value
Number of eyes 74
Sex (M/F) 32:42
Age (years) 62.1 ± 11.00
Follow-up (months) 10.8 ± 3.4

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicate

Axial length and keratometry between two groups

Ultrascan® IOL master® p-value
Axial length (mm) 23.56 ± 0.15 23.85 ± 0.15 p < 0.001
Keratometry (D) 44.05 ± 1.33 44.03 ± 1.35 p = 0.33

Values are presented as mean ± SD. IOL = intraocular lens.

Predictive and achieved refraction in all cases (n = 74)

Ultrascan® IOL master® p-value
Predictive refraction outcome (range in diopters) -0.45 ± 0.95 (-3.24~1.16) -0.85 ± 1.04 (-3.90~1.59) <0.000
Postoperative refraction (range in diopters) -0.93 ± 1.27 (-4.50~1.80) -0.93 ± 1.27 (-4.50~1.80)
Mean absolute error (range in diopters) 0.47 ± 0.69 (-2.15~1.76) 0.08 ± 0.74 (2.34~2.12) <0.000

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated.

IOL = intraocular lens.

Predictive and achieved refraction in cases with vitreous hemorrhage (n = 9)

Ultrascan® IOL master® p-value
Predictive refraction outcome (range in diopters) -0.72 ± 1.07 (-2.49~0.16) -1.22 ± 1.02 (-3.00~0.22) 0.008
Postoperative refraction (range in diopters) -0.81 ± 1.35 (-3.00~0.90) -0.81 ± 1.35 (-3.00~0.90)
Mean absolute error (range in diopters) -0.07 ± 0.54 (-0.80~0.90) 0.42 ± 0.50 (-0.20~1.40) 0.007

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. IOL = intraocular lens.