Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Refractive predictability using two optical biometers and refraction types for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in relation to optical biometry devices and refraction types.

Methods

Patients undergoing cataract phacoemulsification and insertion of the MX60 IOL were enrolled. Optical biometric measurements were performed with both IOLMaster 700 and Lenstar 900. Biometry measurements were compared between devices. A subsample of 133 eyes (81.1%) had examination for both autorefraction and subjective refraction postoperatively. The differences between the postoperative refraction and the refraction predicted by eight formulas (Kane, Hill-RBF 2.0, Barrett Universal II, Olsen, Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Hoffer Q) were calculated.

Results

Overall, this study comprised 164 eyes of 164 patients. High agreement between the two biometers for axial length, average keratometry readings, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness and central corneal thickness was found (interclass correlation confidents: 0.999, 0.988, 0.965, 0.865 and 0.972, respectively, all P < 0.001). The absolute prediction error calculated with IOLMaster 700 measurements was significantly lower than that calculated with Lenstar 900 measurements for Olsen (P = 0.003), Haigis (P < 0.001) and Hoffer Q (P = 0.028). OPD-Scan III gave slightly more negative readings than subjective refraction (mean difference − 0.107 ± 0.553, P = 0.003 for spherical equivalent). However, no significant difference in absolute prediction error was found between the two refraction types per each formula.

Conclusion

IOLMaster 700 and Lenstar 900 showed good agreement in biometric measurements with a trend toward better refractive outcome using IOLMaster 700. The accuracy of IOL calculation assessed with OPD autorefraction was equivalent to that assessed with subjective refraction.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanclerz P, Hoffer KJ, Rozema JJ, Przewłócka K, Savini G (2016) Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:577–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cruysberg LP, Doors M, Verbakel F, Berendschot TT, De Brabander J, Nuijts RM (2009) Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 94:106–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arriola-Villalobos P, Almendral-Gómez J, Garzón N, Ruiz-Medrano J, Fernández-Pérez C, Martínez-de-la-Casa JM, Díaz-Valle D (2017) Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer. Eye 31:437–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Özyol P, Özyol E (2016) Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based topography measurements of anterior segment parameters. Am J Ophthalmol 169:73–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Asena L, Akman A, Gungor SG, Dursun Altınörs D (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 

  6. El Chehab H, Agard E, Dot C (2018) Comparison of two biometers: a swept-source optical coherence tomography and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer. Eur J Ophthalmol 29:547–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ostri C, Holfort SK, Fich MS, Riise P (2018) Automated refraction is stable 1 week after uncomplicated cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol 96:149–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffer KJ, Aramberri J, Haigis W, Olsen T, Savini G, Shammas HJ, Bentow S (2015) Protocols for studies of intraocular lens formula accuracy. Am J Ophthalmol 160:403–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C (2016) Intraocular lens power formula accuracy: comparison of 7 formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1490–1500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kane JX, Van Heerden A, Atik A, Petsoglou C (2017) Accuracy of 3 new methods for intraocular lens power selection. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wallace HB, Misra SL, Li SS, McKelvie J (2018) Predicting pseudophakic refractive error: interplay of biometry prediction error, anterior chamber depth, and changes in corneal curvature. J Cataract Refract Surg 44:1123–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F (2014) Evaluation of the auto-refraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan III. Clin Exp Optom 97:160–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Reitblat O, Levy A, Kleinmann G, Assia EI (2018) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500. Eye 32:1244–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cooke DL, Cooke TL (2016) Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:1157–1164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Aramberri J, Huang J, Barboni P (2017) Accuracy of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for IOL power calculation and comparison to IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 33:690–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Melles RB, Holladay JT, Chang WJ (2018) Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology 125:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Connell BJ, Kane JX (2019) Comparison of the Kane formula with existing formulas for intraocular lens power selection. BMJ Open Ophthalmol 4:e251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Melles RB, Kane JX, Olsen T, Chang WJ (2019) Update on intraocular lens calculation formulas. Ophthalmology 126:1334–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Peizhen Zhao for statistical consultation and Dr. Jack X. Kane for his assistance with the optimization of lens constants.

Funding

This study was supported by grants from National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2017YFC1104603) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81770909).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510060, China

    Huanhuan Cheng, Jianbing Li, Bing Cheng & Mingxing Wu

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China

    Huanhuan Cheng

Authors
  1. Huanhuan Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jianbing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bing Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mingxing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mingxing Wu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

A waiver of consent authorization was granted by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center for this retrospective 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

Cheng, H., Li, J., Cheng, B. et al. Refractive predictability using two optical biometers and refraction types for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol 40, 1849–1856 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01355-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01355-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation