Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of refractive outcomes using Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry or IOLMaster 700 keratometry for IOL power calculation

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

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare postoperative refractive error results using Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) Holladay equivalent keratometry readings (EKR) or IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) keratometry (K) values in IOL power calculation.

Material and methods

This retrospective study included 54 eyes of 31 patients who underwent cataract surgery. Preoperative biometric measurements of all patients were obtained using IOLMaster 700 followed by Pentacam measurements. IOLMaster 700 K measurements on horizontal (K1) and vertical (K2) axes and EKR measurements on 2 mm (EKR2mm), 3 mm (EKR3mm) and 4.5 mm (EKR4.5 mm) corneal zones were recorded. EKR4.5 mm value and IOLMaster 700 K values were used in Holladay-II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer-Q formulas to calculate predictive refractive error (PRE). Absolute refractive error (ARE) was calculated as the absolute difference between actual postoperative refractive error (APRE) and PRE values.

Results

Mean age was 72.2 ± 8.3 (51–87) years and mean IOL power was 21.5 ± 2.9 D (18–23 D). There was no significant difference between PRE values when IOLMaster 700 K measurements and EKR4.5 mm K measurements were used in Holladay-II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Hoffer-Q formulas (p = 0.571, p = 0.833, p = 0.165, p = 0.347, respectively). There was no significant difference between APRE and ARE values (p = 0.124). According to mean ARE results, the closest estimate was achieved when the IOLMaster 700 K values were used in the Holladay-II formula (p = 0.271).

Conclusion

IOLMaster 700 K measurement and Pentacam EKR4.5 mm measurements can be used interchangeably. IOLMaster 700 K values yielded the most predictive measurement of the refractive result using the Holladay-II formula.

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

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

References

  1. Moschos MM, Chatziralli IP, Koutsandrea C (2014) Intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with short axial length. Indian J Ophthalmol 62:692–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang JK, Chang SW (2013) Optical biometry intraocular lens power calculation using different formulas in patients with different axial lengths. Int J Ophthalmol 6:150–154

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Alio JL, Grzybowski A, El Aswad A, Romaniuk D (2014) Refractive lens exchange. Surv Ophthalmol 59:579–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Olsen T (2007) Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85(5):472–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fontes BM, Fontes BM, Castro E (2011) Intraocular lens power calculation by measuring axial length with partial optical coherence and ultrasonic biometry. Arq Bras Oftalmol 74:166–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Olsen T (1986) On the calculation of power from curvature of the cornea. Br J Ophthalmol 70:152–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fam HB, Lim KL (2007) Validity of the keratometric index: large population-based study. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:686–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Asena L, Akman A, Gungor SG, Dursun AD (2018) Comparison of Keratometry Obtained by a Swept Source OCT-Based Biometer with a Standard Optical Biometer and Scheimpflug Imaging. Curr Eye Res 43:882–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Huseynli S, Abdulaliyeva F (2018) Evaluation of scheimpflug tomography parameters in subclinical keratoconus, clinical keratoconus and normal caucasian eyes. Turk J Ophthalmol 48:99–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C (2019) Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 257:2677–2682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tang M, Wang L, Koch DD, Li Y, Huang D (2012) Intraocular lens power calculation after previous myopic laser vision correction based on corneal power measured by Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:589–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Qazi MA, Cua IY, Roberts CJ, Pepose JS (2007) Determining corneal power using Orbscan II videokeratography for intraocular lens calculation after excimer laser surgery for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kwitko S, Marinho DR, Rymer S, Severo N, Arce CG (2012) Orbscan II and double-K method for IOL calculation after refractive surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250:1029–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirgiz A, Atalay K, Kaldirim H, Cabuk KS, Akdemir MO, Taskapili M (2017) Scheimpflug camera combined with placido-disk corneal topography and optical biometry for intraocular lens power calculation. Int Ophthalmol 37:781–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saad E, Shammas MC, Shammas HJ (2013) Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 156:460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Lomoriello DS, Ducoli P (2017) Simulated keratometry versus total corneal power by ray tracing: a comparison in prediction accuracy of intraocular lens power. Cornea 36:1368–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shammas HJ, Hoffer KJ, Shammas MC (2009) Scheimpflug photography keratometry readings for routine intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:330–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1201–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Onay MPES, Üretmen Ö, Köse S (2011) Evaluation of cornea and anterior chamber using Pentacam in pediatric cases. Turk J Ophthalmol 41:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho JD, Tsai CY, Tsai RJ, Kuo LL, Tsai IL, Liou SW (2008) Validity of the keratometric index: evaluation by the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang J, Zhao Y, Savini G, Yu G, Yu J, Chen Z, Tu R, Zhao Y (2020) Reliability of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer in healthy children, adults, and cataract patients. J Ophthalmol. 2020:8946364

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S (2015) Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2224–2232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shankar H, Taranath D, Santhirathelagan CT, Pesudovs K (2008) Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam: comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou D, Sun Z, Deng G (2019) Accuracy of the refractive prediction determined by intraocular lens power calculation formulas in high myopia. Indian J Ophthalmol 67:484–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Symes RJ, Say MJ, Ursell PG (2010) Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1107–1114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Seo KY, Im CY, Yang H, Kim TI, Kim EK, Kim T, Nam SM (2014) New equivalent keratometry reading calculation with a rotating Scheimpflug camera for intraocular lens power calculation after myopic corneal surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:1834–1842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Holladay JT (2010) Accuracy of Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry readings after corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 36:182–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, Singh P, Muller M, Kohnen T (2017) Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol 178:58–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Karunaratne N (2013) Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL Master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 41:825–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Song JS, Yoon DY, Hyon JY, Jeon HS (2020) Comparison of ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using IOL master 500, IOL master 700, and lenstar LS900. Korean J Ophthalmol 34:126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Symes RJ, Ursell PG (2011) Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Helaly HA, El-Hifnawy MA, Shaheen MS, Abou El-Kheir AF (2016) Accuracy of corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation after myopic laser in situ Keratomileusis. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 23:122–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mandell KJ, Rudalevicius P, Jurkunas UV, II RP (2009) Determining the best pentacam EKR zone for IOL power calculations in postrefractive patients. Invest Ophthalmol Visual Sci 50:5082

    Google Scholar 

  35. Savini G, Barboni P, Profazio V, Zanini M, Hoffer KJ (2008) Corneal power measurements with the Pentacam Scheimpflug camera after myopic excimer laser surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:809–813

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Baskent University Research Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Yüksek Ihtisas University, Ankara, Turkey

    Mustafa Aksoy

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Leyla Asena, Sirel Gür Güngör, Ali Küçüködük & Ahmet Akman

Authors
  1. Mustafa Aksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leyla Asena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sirel Gür Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ali Küçüködük
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ahmet Akman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Aksoy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No conflicts of Interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Ethics Review Board of Baskent University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and animal rights

Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aksoy, M., Asena, L., Güngör, S.G. et al. Comparison of refractive outcomes using Scheimpflug Holladay equivalent keratometry or IOLMaster 700 keratometry for IOL power calculation. Int Ophthalmol 41, 2205–2212 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01781-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01781-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation