Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using Low-Coherence Reflectometry with Other Devices for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

Ji Won Kim; Hoon Lee; Ji Won Jung; Jin Sun Kim; Hyung Keun Lee; Kyoung Yul Seo; Eung Kweon Kim; Tae Im Kim

doi:10.3341/jkos.2015.56.10.1558

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.56(10) > 1010110

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim, Lee, Jung, Kim, Lee, Seo, Kim, and Kim: Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using Low-Coherence Reflectometry with Other Devices for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(10):1558-1565.

Published online: 29 August 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.10.1558

Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using Low-Coherence Reflectometry with Other Devices for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

Ji Won Kim, M.D¹, Hoon Lee, M.D^1,², Ji Won Jung, M.D³, Jin Sun Kim, M.D⁴, Hyung Keun Lee, M.D¹, Kyoung Yul Seo, M.D, PhD¹, Eung Kweon Kim, M.D, PhD¹, Tae Im Kim, M.D, PhD^1,

¹The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine^¹, Seoul, Korea

²Department of Ophthalmology, International St. Mary's Hospital, Catholic Kwandong University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

³Department of Ophthalmology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

⁴Myung-Gok Eye Research Institute, Kim's Eye Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Tae Im Kim, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology, Severance Hospital, #50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541 E-mail: taeimkim@gmail.com

‗ This study was presented as a narration at the 111th Annual Meeting of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2014.

Received 14 November 20143 June 2015 Accepted 31 July 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 axial length (AL) and keratometry (K) using optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR, Lenstar LS900^®, Haag- Streit, Bern, Switzerland) with current ocular biometry devices and evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

Methods

In this prospective, comparative observational study of eyes with cataracts, AL and K were measured using an OLCR device (Lenstar LS900^®, Haag-Streit), partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOL Master^®, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany), A-scan (Eyecubed) and automated keratometry (KR-7100, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). IOL power calculation was performed using the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff (SRK/T) formula. The IOL prediction error (PE) was calculated by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the postoperative (PO) IOL power (PO 4 weeks, PO 12 weeks).

Results

A total of 50 eyes of 39 patients with cataracts (mean age 67.12 ± 8.51 years) were evaluated in this study. AL and K were not significantly different between the OLCR device and other devices (analysis of variance [ANOVA], p = 0.946, 0.062, re-spectively). The mean PE in IOL power calculation was -0.22 ± 0.50D with the OLCR device, 0.08 ± 0.45D with the PCI device and -0.01 ± 0.48D with A-scan and automated keratometry (ANOVA, p = 0.006). The highest percentage of eyes with PE smaller than ± 0.5D was IOL Master^® followed by Eyecubed and then Lenstar LS900^®. The mean absolute PE was not statistically sig-nificant among the 3 devices (ANOVA, p = 0.684).

Conclusions

Ocular biometry measurements were comparable between the OLCR device and the PCI ultrasound device. However, the IOL power prediction showed significant differences among the 3 devices. Therefore, the differences in application of these devices should be considered.

Keywords: Axial length, IOL-Master, Keratometry, Lenstar LS900, Optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR)

References

1. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS. A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86:458–62.

2. Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T. Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algo-rithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:920–4.

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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S. . A new optical low co-herence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:949–53.

7. Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Wälti R. . Comparison and evaluation of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:2087–92.

8. Zhao J, Chen Z, Zhou Z. . Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar and comparison with two other non-contact biometric de-vices in myopes. Clin Exp Optom. 2013; 96:92–9.

9. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical bio-metry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:513–7.

10. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G. Comparison of 2 laser instru-ments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:644–8.

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

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

13. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK. . Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:717–24.

14. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M. . Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation. Optometry. 2011; 82:140–7.

15. Shin JW, Seong M, Kang MH. . Comparison of ocular bio-metry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients between Lenstar(R) and IOL Master(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:833–8.

16. Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S. . Keratometry with five dif-ferent techniques: a study of device repeatability and inter-device agreement. Int Ophthalmol. 2014; 34:869–75.

17. Huynh SC, Mai TQ, Kifley A. . An evaluation of keratometry in 6-year-old children. Cornea. 2006; 25:383–7.

18. Whang WJ, Byun YS, Joo CK. Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2012; 40:425–32.

19. Carney LG, Mainstone JC, Henderson BA. Corneal topography and myopia. A cross-sectional study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:311–20.

20. Speicher L. Intra-ocular lens calculation status after corneal re-fractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001; 12:17–29.

21. Bjeloš Ronč ević M, Bušić M, Cima I. . Intraobserver and inter-observer repeatability of ocular components measurement in cata-ract eyes using a new optical low coherence reflectometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011; 249:83–7.

22. Stattin M, Zehetner C, Bechrakis NE, Speicher L. Comparison of IOL-Master 500 vs. Lenstar LS900 concerning the calculation of target refraction: a retrospective analysis. Ophthalmologe. 2015; 112:444–50.

Figure 1.

Correlation between biometric data (axial length, keratometry) measured by Lenstar LS900® and other devices (Pearson correlation analysis). Axial length measured by Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (A) and A-scan (B). Keratometry measured by Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (C) and autokeratometer (D).

Figure 2.

Bland-Altman plot of axial length between Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (A), Lenstar LS900® and A-scan (B), kera-tometry between Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (C), Lenstar LS900® and autokeratometer (D). LOA=limit of agreement.

Table 1.

Comparison of biometric data (axial length, keratometry) by Lenstar LS900®, IOL Master®, A-scan and automated keratometry

	Lenstar LS900®	IOL Master®	A-scan	Automated keratometry	p-value^*
Axial length (mm)	23.63 ± 0.71	23.58 ± 0.68	23.60 ± 0.70	-	0.946
Keratometry (D)
K1	43.77 ± 1.40	44.18 ± 1.32	-	43.86 ± 1.40	0.302
K2	44.78 ± 1.39	45.49 ± 1.42	-	44.71 ± 1.33	0.009
Average K	44.27 ± 1.36	44.83 ± 1.33	-	44.29 ± 1.34	0.062

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. D = diopters; K = keratometry.

^* Analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Table 2.

Comparison of PE among LS900®, IOL Master® and A-scan

		Lenstar LS900®	IOL Master®	A-scan	p-value^*
PE (D)
4 weeks		-0.15 ± 0.47	0.15 ± 0.43	0.07 ± 0.44	0.003
12 weeks		-0.22 ± 0.50	0.08 ± 0.45	-0.01 ± 0.48	0.006
Absolute PE (D)
4 weeks		0.41 ± 0.27	0.34 ± 0.30	0.34 ± 0.28	0.388
12 weeks		0.41 ± 0.36	0.36 ± 0.27	0.37 ± 0.30	0.684
Range (D)
4 weeks		-1.30~1.02	-0.69~1.25	-0.96~1.28
12 weeks		-1.28~1.00	-0.76~1.21	-0.93~1.28
Eyes within (%)
±0.25D	4 weeks	34	46	52
	12 weeks	44	46	46
±0.5D	4 weeks	70	80	84
	12 weeks	68	78	70
±1.0D	4 weeks	94	94	96
	12 weeks	91	98	98
±1.5D	4 weeks	100	100	100
	12 weeks	100	100	100

Values are presented as mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated. PE = prediction error; D = diopters.

^* Analysis of variance (ANOVA).

TOOLS

Similar articles