Comparison of the Refractive Results Measured by Ultrasound and Partial Coherence Interferometers

Ah Shin Jeing; Kun Chung Sung

doi:10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.723

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(5) > 1009671

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jeing and Sung: Comparison of the Refractive Results Measured by Ultrasound and Partial Coherence Interferometers

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(5):723-727.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.5.723

Comparison of the Refractive Results Measured by Ultrasound and Partial Coherence Interferometers

Ah Shin Jeing, MD, Kun Chung Sung, MD, PhD

¹Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital #10 63-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-713, Korea Tel: 82-2-3779-1245, Fax: 82-2-761-6869, E-mail: eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr

Received 2 June 201219 November 2012 Accepted 5 March 2013

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 ocular biometry measured by applanation ultrasonography and IOL Master^®, and evaluate the accu-racies of the refractive outcome after cataract surgery.

Methods

The biometries of 76 cataractous eyes were measured using ultrasonography and IOL Master^®. The SRK-T for-mula was employed to predict the patient’s implanted IOL power. Two months after cataract surgery, the refractive out-come was determined, and results from the 2 different biometry methods were compared.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in axial length (AXL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) be-tween ultrasonography and IOL Master^® ( p = 0.501). When using ultrasonography, the mean absolute error (MAE) of the ultrasonography and IOL Master^® was 0.53 ± 0.30 diopter (D), 0.55 ± 0.41 D, respectively. The difference between the 2 biometry methods was not statistically significant ( p = 0.110).

Conclusions

Although the difference was not statistically significant, AXL measured by IOL Master^® was longer and ACD measured by IOL Master^® was deeper than when measured by A-scan. This difference was more pronounced in patients with a short AXL. The accuracy of IOL power calculation was similar between the 2 devices.

Keywords: A-scan, Axial length, IOL Master^®, Partial coherence interferometer, Refractive error

References

1. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–9.

2. Giers U, Epple C. Comparison of A-scan device accuracy. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:235–42.

3. Findle O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of in-traocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:861–7.

4. Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Blom E, Dick HB. Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:741–6.

5. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence inter-ferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 126:524–34.

6. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. High precision biometry of pseudophakic eyes using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998; 24:1087–93.

7. Kim HJ, Joo CK. Comparison of IOM Master, A-scan and Orbscan 2 for measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1519–27.

8. Choi JH, Roh GH. The reproducibility and accuracy of biometry parameter measurement from IOL Master^®. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1665–73.

9. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:333–40.

10. Holladay JT. Standardizing constants for ultrasonic biometry, kera-tometry, and intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:1356–70.

11. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of im-mersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000; 238:765–73.

12. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser inter-ferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond). 2002; 16:552–6.

13. Auffarth GU, Tetz MR, Biazid Y, Völcker HE. Measuring anterior chamber depth with Orbscan Topography System. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:1351–5.

14. Häsemeyer S, Hugger P, Jonas JB. Preoperative biometry of cata-ractous eyes using partial coherence laser interferometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003; 241:251–2.

15. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, et al. Immersion A-scan com-pared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:239–42.

16. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound bio-metry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype II. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:230–4.

17. Song BY, Yang KJ, Yoon KC. Accuracy of partial coherence inter-ferometry in intraocular lens power calculation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005; 46:775–80.

Table 1.

Comparison of the mean axial length and anterior chamber depth measured with A-scan and IOL master®

		A-scan	IOL master®	p-value^‡
All eyes (n = 76)	AXL (mm)	23.82 ± 1.16	23.91 ± 1.20	0.501
	ACD (mm)	2.80 ± 0.64	2.81 ± 0.56	0.441
Group I^* (n = 13)	AXL (mm)	21.66 ± 0.45	21.78 ± 1.01	0.217
	ACD (mm)	2.52 ± 0.72	2.54 ± 0.66	0.442
Group II^† (n = 63)	AXL (mm)	24.02 ± 1.24	24.09 ± 1.39	0.335
	ACD (mm)	3.01 ± 0.45	3.05 ± 0.56	0.282

Values are presented as mean ± SD. AXL = mean axial length; ACD = anterior chamber depth.

^* ALX < 22 mm

^† AXL ≥ 22 mm

^‡ Paired t-test.

Table 2.

Refractive errors measured with A-scan and IOL master® of each group according to axial lengths

		A-scan	IOL master®	p-value^‡
All eyes (n = 76)	MNE (D)	0.32 ± 0.23	0.30 ± 0.51	0.740
	MAE (D)	0.53 ± 0.30	0.55 ± 0.41	0.110
Group I^* (n = 13)	MNE (D)	-0.17 ± 0.52	-0.08 ± 0.84	0.306
	MAE (D)	0.53 ± 0.30	0.56 ± 0.45	0.211
Group II^† (n = 63)	MNE (D)	0.39 ± 0.30	0.25 ± 0.41	0.498
	MAE (D)	0.44 ± 0.32	0.40 ± 0.36	0.566

Values are presented as mean ± SD. AXL = mean axial length; MNE = mean numeric error; MAE = mean absolute error.

^* ALX < 22 mm

^† AXL ≥ 22 mm

^‡ Wilcoxon signed rank test.

Table 3.

Percentage of cases predicted to within ±0.50 D, ±1.00 D, and ±1.50 D of each group

	Eye within
	0.50 D	1.00 D	1.50 D
All eyes (n = 76)	A-scan	62%	84%	95%
	IOL master®	61.5%	86%	96%
Group I^* (n = 13)	A-scan	57%	77%	89%
	IOL master®	56%	75%	96%
Group II^† (n = 63)	A-scan	64%	88%	97%
	IOL master®	65%	90%	96%

^* ALX < 22 mm

^† AXL L ≥ 22 mm.

TOOLS

Similar articles