AOR
Archives of Ophthalmological Research

The Archives of Ophthalmological Research aims to publish issues related to publish articles of the highest scientific and clinical value at an international level, and accepts articles on these topics. The target audience of the journal included specialists and physicians working in ophthalmology, and other health professionals interested in these fields.

eISSN: 3023-6479
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Online Manuscript System

Index
Original Article
Comparison of axial length, intraocular lens power and refractive results using optical and ultrasound biometry
Abstract
Aims: The aim of the study was to determine whether a new non-contact partial coherence interferometry method utilized by the Nidek-AL Scan agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in intraocular lens power calculation to replace it.
Methods: This was a prospective study of 150 eyes of 125 patients who underwent cataract surgery with the Nidek AL Scan and ultrasound biometry. The intraocular lens power AL and ACD were compared between two methods with Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. The mean difference between final spherical equivalent refraction and the prediction with each technology was compared.
Results: On average the axial lengths measured by the Nidek AL-Scan were longer by 0.11 ± 0.13 mm compared the ultrasound biometry. (p<0.001). Pearson correlation analysis showed very high correlation between 2 devices for AL and IOL power (r>0.90, p<0.05). and high correlation for ACD. On Bland-Altman analysis 95% limits of agreement for all parameters were within clinically acceptable limits and there was good agreement between 2 devices. Mean absolute error when SRKT formula for AL-Scan was 0.20 ± 0.17 D whereas for US 0.29 ± 0.25 D (p<0.001)
Conclusion: The intraocular lens power and AL derived from both groups were similar. The agreements between them were high. Two techniques may be used interchangeably.

Keywords : Biometry, axial length, iol power

Download Article


1. Kershner RM. Sutureless one-handed intercapsular phacoemulsification.The keyhole technique. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1991;17:719-725.
2. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R. Partial coherence interferometry: anovel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmology.1998;126(4):524-534.
3. Bellucci R. Multifocal intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005;16(1):33-37.
4. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreementbetween two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310.
5. Raj PS, Ilango B, Watson A. Measurement of axial length in thecalculation of intraocular lens power. Eye (London). 1986;12:227-229.
6. Berges O, Puech M, Assouline M, Letenneur L, Gastellu-Etchegorry M.B-mode guided vector A-mode versus A-mode biometry to determineaxial length and intraocular lens power. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:529-535.
7. Sheng H, Bottjer CA, Bullimore MA. Ocular component measurementusing the Zeiss IOLMaster. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:27-34.
8. Eleftheriadis H. IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmolgy. 2003;87:960-963.
9. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. ActaOphthalmolgy. 2007;85:472-485.
10. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ. Anew optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry incataract patients. British J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(7):949-953.
11. Roncevic MB, Busic M, Cima I. Comparison of optical low-coherencereflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lenspower calculation Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011;249:69-75.
12. Huang J, Savini G. Evaluation of a new optical biometry devicefor measurements of ocular components and its comparison withIOLMaster. British J Ophthalmol. 2014;98(9):1277-1281.
13. Patel R, Pandit R. Comparison of anterior chamber depthmeasurements from the Galiei dual scheimplug analyzer withIOLMaster. J Ophthalmol. 2012;2012:430249.
14. Savini G, Hoffer KJ. Anterior chamber and aqueous depth measurementin pseudophakic eyes: agreement between ultrasound biometry andscheimpflug imaging. J Refract Surgery. 2013;29(2):121-125.
15. Akkaya Turhan S, Toker E. Comparison of immersion ultrasoundbiometry and optical LowCoherence reflectometry for intraocular lenspower calculation. Glokom-Katarakt. 2012;7:219-223.
16. Can E, Duran M. comparison of measurements with optical lowcoherence reflectometry and contact ultrasound biometry. Glokom-Katarakt. 2015;10:33-36.
17. Roy A, Das S, Sahu SK, Rath S. Ultrasound biometry vs. IOL Master.Ophthalmology. 2012;119(9):1937.e1-1937.e19372. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.06.006
18. Lundstr&ouml;m M, Barry P, Henry Y, Rosen P, Stenevi U. Evidence-based guidelines for cataract surgery: guidelines based on data in theEuropean Registry of Quality Outcomes for Cataract and RefractiveSurgery database. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(6):1086-1093.
19. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometryvs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens powercalculations. Eye (Lond). 2002;16(5):552-556.
Article available in :
Volume 1, Issue 3, 2024
Page : 40-45
https://doi.org/10.51271/AOR-0012
Article Information
Received : 20 Haz 2024
Accepted : 22 Tem 2024
Published : 26 Tem 2024
Corresponding Author :

Ali Ender Kulak: Department of Ophthalmology, Sincan Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Kulak AE, Totan Y. Comparison of axial length, intraocular lens power and refractive results using optical and ultrasound biometry. Arch Ophthalmol Res. 2024;1(3):40-45.

Read: 265
Cited: 0
Download : 41
_Footer