Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of preoperative and postoperative measurements of optical low-coherence reflectometry biometry and assessment of its refractive predictability

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the preoperative and postoperative measurements of optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) biometry and assessment of its refractive predictability.

Methods

A total of 114 eyes of 102 patients who underwent cataract treatment were prospectively examined. The axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), K (keratometry) 1, K2, K average (KAVE) and K astigmatic (KAST) values were recorded using Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland) OLCR device. The IOL (intraocular lens) power was measured based on the SRK/T formula. The cases were divided into three subgroups according to AL (Group 1: AL < 22 mm, Group 2: 22 mm ≤ AL < 24 mm, Group 3: 24 mm ≤ AL). The mean absolute error (MAE) calculated for each eye.

Results

The right eyes of 45 patients (44.1%), left eyes of 45 patients (44.1%), and both eyes of 12 patients (11.7%) were examined. The average AL in the preoperative period was 23.19 ± 1.01; it was 23.20 ± 0.99 in the postoperative period (p > 0.05). A significant deepening was detected in the postoperative ACD (preop 2.76 ± 0.38 mm, postop 3.81 ± 0.46 mm, p < 0.001). CCT was measured as 521.4 ± 36.3 µm in the preoperative period and as 530.8 ± 42.8 (p > 0.05) µm in the postoperative period. The average mean absolute error (MAE) was measured as 0.48 ± 0.41 D, whereas refractive error was − 0.081 ± 0.67 D. The MAE distribution of cases was found to be ≤ 1.5 D 109 (95.6%) eyes, and ≤ 2.0 D in 114 (100%) eyes. MAE values according to AL of the cases were calculated as 0.71 ± 0.83 D in group 1, 0.49 ± 0.43 D in group 2 and 0.41 ± 0.36 D in group 3 (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

When the measurement and refractive results of the OLCR biometry were evaluated, it was observed that there was a very satisfactory result and a predictable device compatible with the current literature. The SRK/T formula, one of the new generation formulas, has shown high MAE and RE results in eyes with AL ≤ 22 mm, although not statistically significant. Other new generation formulas should be tried in these eyes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tabin G, Chen M, Espandar L (2008) Cataract surgery for the developing world. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19:55–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ophthalmology Abouzeid H (2011) New trends in cataract surgery. Rev Med Suisse 7:128–132

    Google Scholar 

  3. Norrby S (2008) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:368–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Olsen T (2007) Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:472–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Ghoreyshi M (2011) Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation. Optometry 82:140–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Coffman PG, Brown LK (2002) Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry; outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:239–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU (2009) Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 93:807–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Walti R, Clemetson IA, Tappeiner C, Goldblum D (2009) Comparison and evaluation of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer. Ophthalmology 116:2087–2092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabsilber TM, Jepsen C, Auffarth GU, Holzer MP (2010) Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:230–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bjelos Roncevic M, Busic M, Cima I, Kuzmanovic Elabjer B, Bosnar D, Miletic D (2011) Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of ocular components measurement in cataract eyes using a new optical low coherence reflectometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:83–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shammas HJ, Hoffer KJ (2012) Repeatability and reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements using a noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer and keratometer. Am J Ophthalmol 153:55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Liampa Z, Kynigopoulos M, Pallas G, Gerding H (2010) Comparison of two partial coherence interferometry devices for ocular biometry. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 227:285–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mylonas G, Sacu S, Buehl W, Ritter M, Georgopoulos M, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2011) Performance of three biometry devices in patients with different grades of age-related cataract. Acta Ophthalmol 89:237–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93:949–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O (2011) Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:513–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kolodziejczyk W, Galecki T, Lazicka-Galecka M, Szaflik J (2011) Comparison of the biometric measurements obtained using noncontact optical biometers LenStar LS 900 and IOL Master V. 5. Klin Oczna 113:47–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kakoulidis K, Cernak A, Cernak M (2011) Morphologic changes of anterior segment of the eye after cataract surgery. Cesk Slov Oftalmol 67:111–114

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Olsen T (2011) Use of fellow eye data in the calculation of intraocular lens power for the second eye. Ophthalmology 118:1710–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hildebrandt AL, Auffarth GU, Holzer MP (2011) Precision of a new device for biometric measurements in pseudophakic eyes. Ophthalmologe 108:739–744

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G (2010) Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:644–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim SM, Choi J, Choi S (2009) Refractive predictability of partial coherence interferometry and factors that can affect it. Korean J Ophthalmol 23:6–12

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Eleftheriadis H (2003) IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol 87:960–963

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW (2008) Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMaster and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hasemeyer S, Hugger P, Jonas JB (2003) Preoperative biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence laser interferometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:251–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Song BYYK, Yoon KC (2005) Accuracy of partial coherence interferometry in intraocular lens power calculation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 46:775–780

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artvin State Hospital, Artvin, Turkey

    İrfan Akalın

  2. Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddin Education and Research Hospital, Amasya, Turkey

    Melek Tüfek

  3. Uşak Education and Research Hospital, Uşak, Turkey

    Mustafa Türkyılmaz

  4. Hacettepe Medical Faculty, Ankara, Turkey

    Faruk Öztürk

Authors
  1. İrfan Akalın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melek Tüfek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mustafa Türkyılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Faruk Öztürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to İrfan Akalın.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akalın, İ., Tüfek, M., Türkyılmaz, M. et al. Comparison of preoperative and postoperative measurements of optical low-coherence reflectometry biometry and assessment of its refractive predictability. Int Ophthalmol 39, 1337–1343 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0952-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0952-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation