Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measured Using Four Applanation Ultrasonographic Biometry Devices

Byung Su Lim; Sang Kyu Lee; Eun Chul Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1631

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.55(11) > 1009833

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lim, Lee, and Kim: Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measured Using Four Applanation Ultrasonographic Biometry Devices

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2014;55(11):1631-1635.

Published online: 2 September 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1631

Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measured Using Four Applanation Ultrasonographic Biometry Devices

Byung Su Lim, MD¹, Sang Kyu Lee, MD², Eun Chul Kim, MD¹

¹Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea

²Kangnam St. Mary's LASIK Center, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Eun Chul Kim, MD, Department of Ophthalmology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, #327 Sosa-ro, Wonmi-gu, Bucheon 420-717, Korea, Tel: 82-32-340-2125, Fax: 82-32-340-2661, E-mail: eunchol@hanmail.net

Received 21 February 2014 Revised 26 June 2014 Accepted 3 October 2014

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 using 4 applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices and evaluate the accuracies of the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery.

Methods

A total of 60 eyes in 60 patients who received cataract surgery were included in the present study. The axial length was measured using applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices (Aviso^®, Hi-Scan^®, UD-6000^®, P37-II^®). Additionally, keratometry was measured using an autokeratometer (Topcon KR 8000) and the SRK/T formula was used to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power. Two months after cataract surgery, the refractive outcome was determined, and results from the 4 different applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices were compared.

Results

Axial lengths were 23.52 ± 1.45 mm, 23.51 ± 1.04 mm, 23.54 ± 1.58 mm, and 23.52 ± 1.38 mm measured using Aviso^®, Hi-Scan^®, UD-6000^®, and P37-II^®, respectively with no statistically significant differences observed (p = 0.92). The mean absolute error (MAE) of the Aviso^®, Hi-Scan^®, UD-6000^®, and P37-II^® was 0.41 ± 0.32 diopter (D), 0.40 ± 0.30 D, 0.36 ± 0.26 D, and 0.39 ± 0.26 D, respectively. The mean numerical error (MNE) was 0.39 ± 0.37 D, 0.36 ± 0.32 D, 0.26 ± 0.29 D, and 0.38 ± 0.32 D, respectively. The differences between the 4 different applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices were not statistically significant (p = 0.90, p = 0.81).

Conclusions

The ocular biometric measurements and prediction of postoperative refraction using Aviso^®, Hi-Scan^®, UD-6000^®, P37-II^® showed no significant differences.

Keywords: Applanation ultrasonographic biometry, A-scan, Axial length, Refractive error

References

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

2. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU. Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:807–10.

3. Lam AK, Chan R, Pang PC. The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21:477–83.

4. Freeman G, Pesudovs K. The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005; 83:439–42.

5. 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.

6. Németh J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N. Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:85–8.

7. Olsen T. The accuracy of ultrasonic determination of axial length in pseudophakic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1989; 67:141–4.

8. Connors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:235–8.

9. Kielhorn I, Rajan MS, Tesha PM, et al. Clinical assessment of the Zeiss IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:518–22.

10. Hennessy MP, Franzco Chan DG. Contact versus immersion biometry of axial length before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29:2195–8.

11. Rhim JW, Kang SY, Kim HM. Comparative analysis of contact and immersion technique in ultrasonographic biometry. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2009; 50:1795–9.

12. Binkhorst RD. The accuracy of ultrasonic measurement of the axial length of the eye. Ophthalmic Surg. 1981; 12:363–5.

13. Wirtitsch MG, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Effect of haptic design on change in axial lens position after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:45–51.

14. Kim SI, Kang SJ, Oh TH, et al. Accuracy of ocular biometry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients with AL-Scan®. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:1688–93.

15. Shin JA, Chung SK. Comparison of the refractive results measured by ultrasound and partial coherence interferometers. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2013; 54:723–7.

16. Kwag JY, Choi SH. Comparison of ocular biometry measured by ultrasound and two kinds of partial coherence interferometers. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:169–74.

Table 1.

The differences between target refraction and refraction after cataract operation

	Aviso®	Hi-scan^®	UD-6000^®	P37-II^®	p-value^∗
MAE					0.90
Mean ± SD	0.41 ± 0.32	0.40 ± 0.30	0.36 ± 0.26	0.39 ± 0.26
Range	0.02-1.22	0.03-1.34	0.00-1.15	0.00-1.30
MNE					0.81
Mean ± SD	0.39 ± 0.37	0.36 ± 0.32	0.26 ± 0.29	0.38 ± 0.32
Range	−0.56-1.32	−0.62-1.39	−0.57-1.33	−0.59-1.30

MAE = mean absolute error; MNE = mean numerical error.

^∗ Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 2.

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

Device	Eye within^∗
Device	0.50 D	1.00 D	1.50 D	2.00 D
Aviso® (%)	79	96	100	100
Hi-scan^® (%)	79	97.5	100	100
UD-6000^® (%)	75	97	100	100
P37-II^® (%)	73.5	98	100	100

D = diopter.

^∗ Percentage of eyes within 0.50 D, 1.00 D, 1.50 D, and 2.00 D from intended refraction.

Table 3.

Technical information of Aviso^®, Hi-Scan^®, UD-6000^®, P37-II^®

Variable	Aviso^®	Hi-Scan^®	UD-6000^®	P37-II^®
Frequency (MHz)	11	10	10	10
Gain (dB)	110	115	80	98
Diameter of tip (mm)	6	−	5.3	−
Resolution (mm)	0.04	0.015	0.01	0.01
Measuring mode	Contact, immersion	Contact, immersion	Contact, immersion	Contact, immersion
Biometry accuracy (mm)	±0.04	Adjustable	±0.1	±0.06
Measuring range (mm)	10-45	1-60	15-40	15-39
IOL formulas	SRK-T, SRK II, HOLLADAY, BINKHORST-II, HOFFER-Q, HAIGIS	SRK-T, SRK II, HOLLADAY, HOFFER-Q, HAIGIS, Post-refractive (Camellin-Calossi)	SRK-T, SRK II, HOLLADAY, HOFFER-Q, HAIGIS, Showa	SRK-T, SRK II, HOLLADAY, BINKHORST-II, HOFFER-Q, HAIGIS
Velocity	Adjustable for each segment	Preset for each segment or modified by user	−	−
Number of measurement	10	5	10	8-10

IOL = intraocular lens.

TOOLS

Similar articles