Comparison of Biometric Measurements and Refractive Results among Low-coherence Reflectometry, Partial Interferometry and Applanation Ultrasonography

Sung Hoon Lee; Hyung Keun Lee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2017.58.1.43

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.58(1) > 1010742

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee and Lee: Comparison of Biometric Measurements and Refractive Results among Low-coherence Reflectometry, Partial Interferometry and Applanation Ultrasonography

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2017;58(1):43-49.

Published online: 30 August 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.1.43

Comparison of Biometric Measurements and Refractive Results among Low-coherence Reflectometry, Partial Interferometry and Applanation Ultrasonography

Sung Hoon Lee, M.D, Hyung Keun Lee, M.D

The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Hyung Keun Lee, MD Department of Ophthalmology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, #211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06273, Korea Tel: 82-2-2019-3440, Fax: 82-2-3463-1049 E-mail: shadik@yuhs.ac

* This study was supported by a faculty research grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2010 (6-2010-0111).

Received 25 August 201614 October 2016 Accepted 19 December 2016

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 measurement results and the accuracy of the predicted refractive error after cataract surgery among 3 ocular biometry devices; OA-2000^®, IOL Master^® and A-scan ultrasound in posterior subscapular cataracts.

Methods

Biometry measurements including axial length, anterior chamber depth and the keratometry of 80 cataractous eyes were measured using ultrasonography, OA-2000^® and IOL Master^®. To calculate the intraocular lens (IOL) power, the SRK/T for-mula was used and 3 months after cataract surgery, the refractive outcome was compared to the preoperatively predicted re-fractive error.

Results

The number of eyes measured by the 3 devices (A-scan, IOL Master^® and OA-2000^®) was 57 (group A) and the number of eyes measured by 2 devices (A-scan and OA-2000^®) was 22 (group B). When cataract grading was performed based on the Lens Opacity Classification system Ⅲ, the severity of posterior subscapular opacity was significantly different between the 2 groups ( p = 0.001). Although no difference was observed in the measured biometry values including axial length, anterior cham-ber depth and keratometry in groups A and B, the predicted refractive error was significantly different in group B; OA-2000^® showed a significantly higher accuracy in predicting IOL power than A-scan.

Conclusions

In cataract patients whose posterior subscapular opacity is not severe, the accuracy for predicting refractive error after cataract surgery was not significantly different among the 3 devices included in our study (A-scan, IOL Master^® and OA-2000^®). However, in patients with severe posterior subscapular opacity, OA-2000^®, that provides a Fourier domain light source-calculated predicted refractive error of IOL may be more accurate.

Keywords: A-scan, Intraocular lens, IOL Master, OA-2000, Posterior subcapular cataract

References

1. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence inter-ferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

2. 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. 1961; 66:111–24.

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. 1961; 66:111–24.

4. Wylę gał a E, Teper S, Nowiń ska AK, et al. Anterior segment imag-ing: Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography versus time-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

5. Tang M, Wang L, Koch DD, et al. Intraocular lens power calcu-lation after previous myopic laser vision correction based on cor-neal power measured by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

6. Moon JS, Shin JA, Bae GH, Chung SK. Comparison of biometric measurements and refractive results between applanation ultra-sonography and three different interferometries. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

7. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The lens opacities classi-fication system III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

8. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

9. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S. Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomog-raphy-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

10. Telenkov SA, Mandelis A. Fourier-domain biophotoacoustic sub-surface depth selective amplitude and phase imaging of turbid phantoms and biological tissue. J Biomed Opt. 2006; 11:044006.

11. Povazay B, Hermann B, Unterhuber A, et al. Three-dimensional optical coherence tomography at 1050 nm versus 800 nm in retinal pathologies: enhanced performance and choroidal penetration in cataract patients. J Biomed Opt. 2007; 12:041211.

12. Grulkowski I, Liu JJ, Zhang JY, et al. Reproducibility of a long-range swept-source optical coherence tomography ocular biometry system and comparison with clinical biometers. Ophthalmology. 1961; 66:111–24.

13. Grajciar B, Pircher M, Hitzenberger CK, et al. High sensitive measurement of the human axial eye length in vivo with Fourier domain low coherence interferometry. Opt Express. 2008; 16:2405–14.

14. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, et al. Axial length measure-ment failure rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in eyes with cataract. PLoS One. 2015; 10:e0128929.

15. Kim SI, Kang SJ, Oh TH, et al. Accuracy of ocular biometry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients with AL-Scan(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

16. Shin JW, Seong M, Kang MH, et al. Comparison of ocular bio-metry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients between Lenstar(R) and IOL Master(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

17. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G. Comparison of 2 laser instru-ments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

18. 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.

Table 1.

Comparison of lens opacity between group A and B

	A group (n = 57)	B group (n = 23)	p-value^*
Cataract grade of LOCS Ⅲ
Cortical	3.4 ± 1.8	2.0 ± 1.7	0.150
Nuclear	3.1 ± 0.9	2.8 ± 0.8	0.546
Posterior subcapsular	1.1 ± 1.6	4.3 ± 1.0	0.001

Values are presented as mean ± SD. LOCS Ⅲ = Lens Opacity Classfication system Ⅲ.

^* Analysis of variance (student t-test).

Table 2.

Comparison of axial length, anterior chamber depth and keratometry data measured by OA-2000®, IOL Master®, A-scan and automated keratometry

	OA-2000®	IOL Master®	A-scan	Automated keratometry	p-value
Group A (n = 57)
Axial length (mm)	24.05 ± 0.61	24.01 ± 0.64	23.99 ± 0.62	-	0.823^*
Keratometry (D)
K1	44.0 ± 0.6	43.9 ± 0.8	-	44.0 ± 0.7	0.995^*
K2	44.3 ± 0.6	44.6 ± 0.6	-	44.4 ± 0.8	0.842^*
ACD	3.6 ± 0.4	3.9 ± 0.7	3.6 ± 0.6	-	0.522^*
Group B (n = 23)
Axial length (mm)	24.28 ± 1.34	-	24.19 ± 1.01		0.838^†
Keratometry (D)
K1	43.2 ± 0.8	-	-	43.1 ± 0.9	0.874^†
K2	44.5 ± 0.7	-	-	44.2 ± 0.8	0.677^†
ACD	3.4 ± 0.3	-	3.5 ± 0.3	-	0.326^†

Values are presented as mean ± SD. D = diopters; K = keratometry; ACD = anterior chamber depth.

^* Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

^† Analysis of variance (paired t-test).

Table 3.

Comparison of PE at 3 month post-operation among OA-2000®, IOL Master® and A-scan

	OA-2000®	IOL Master®	A-scan	p-value
Group A (n = 57)
PE (D)	0.19 ± 0.30	-0.20 ± 0.53	0.25 ± 0.76	0.541^*
Range (D)	-0.60~0.72	-0.80~0.75	-1.25~1.00
Eyes within (%)
±0.25 D	46	48	40
±0.5 D	81	76	78
±1.0 D	96	95	95
±1.5 D	100	100	100
Group B (n = 23)
PE (D)	0.00 ± 0.26	-	0.50 ± 0.88	0.039^†
Range (D)	-0.58~0.41	-	-1.30~1.23
Eyes within (%)
±0.25 D	43	-	35
±0.5 D	83	-	78
±1.0 D	96	-	96
±1.5 D	100	-	100

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

^* Analysis of variance (ANOVA) after absolute value conversion of PE (D)

^† Analysis of variance (paired t-test) after absolute value conversion of PE (D).

Figure 1.

Correlation of measured axial length value between OA-2000® and other devices (Pearson correlation analysis). Axial length measured by OA-2000® and IOL-Master® in Group A (A) OA-2000® and A-scan in Group A (B) OA-2000® and A-scan in Group B (C).

Figure 2.

Correlation of measured keratometry power between OA-2000® and other devices (Pearson correlation analysis). Corneal power measured by OA-2000® and autokeratometer in Group A (A) OA-2000® and IOL-Master® in Group A (B) OA-2000® and au-tokeratometer in Group B (C) OA-2000® and IOL-Master® in Group B (D).

Figure 3.

Bland-Altman plot of axial length between OA-2000® and A-scan. LOA = limit of agreement.

TOOLS

Similar articles