SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Glokom Katarakt / 2011 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Effect of diurnal variation on the intraocular lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry

Gün içi dalgalanmaların kısmi koherens interferometre kullanılarak hesaplanan göz içi lens gücü üzerine etkisi

Fatih ULAŞ
Mehmet BALBABA
CEM ÇANKAYA
Pages
173–177
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

SRK/T formula showed the least variation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: To evaluate the diurnal variation of the intraocular lens (IOL) power in healthy subjects by various commonly used IOL formulas using optical biometer based upon the principle of partial coherence interferometry (PCI).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 62 eyes of 32 healthy subjects, ages ranged from 25 to 36 years were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:SRK/T formula showed the least variation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diurnal variation of the intraocular lens (IOL) power in healthy subjects by various commonly used IOL formulas using optical biometer based upon the principle of partial coherence interferometry (PCI). Materials and Methods: A total of 62 eyes of 32 healthy subjects, ages ranged from 25 to 36 years were evaluated. Measurements were performed two times in the morning and evening hours by using optical biometer. IOL power was calculated using Haigis, Hoffer-Q, Holladay-1 and SRK/T formulas. Results: According to calculated IOL power differences, there was not any statistically significant change between IOL power calculation formulas in right and left eyes (p=0.511 and p=0.206, respectively). SRK/T formula was found to be the least and Haigis formula was found to be the most variable formula. Comparison of the formulas by using post hoc tests yielded statistically significant change only between Haigis and SRK/T tests (p=0.046). Conclusion: IOL power that was determined using different formulas with optical biometry in the morning and evening hours of the day did not differ significantly. SRK/T formula showed the least variation.

Özet

Amaç: Sağlıklı bireylerde kısmi koherens interferometre (KKİ) cihazı kullanılarak sabah ve akşam saatlerinde yapılan ölçümlerle hesaplanan göz içi lens (GİL) gücü diyoptrilerinin karşılaştırılması. Gereç ve Yöntem: Yaşları 25-36 arası değişen 32 sağlıklı bireyin 62 gözünün sabah ve akşam saatlerinde KKİ cihazı ile Haigis, Hoffer-Q, Holladay-1 ve SRK/T formüllerini kullanarak GİL güçleri hesaplandı. Bulgular: Hesaplanan GİL güçleri diyoptri farkı göz önüne alındığında dört formül arasında sağ ve sol gözde anlamlı fark bulunamamıştır (sırasıyla p=0.511 ve p=0.206). İstatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık olmasa da en az değişkenlik gösteren formül SRK/T, en çok değişkenlik gösteren formül Haigis olarak saptandı. Post hoc testleriyle formüllerin kendi aralarında karşılaştırılması yapıldığında ise sadece sol gözde Haigis ve SRK/T testleri arasında anlamlı fark saptandı (p=0.046). Sonuç: Bu sonuçlar KKİ cihazı kullanılarak elde edilen değerlerle ve farklı formüllerle hesaplanan GİL gücünün gün içinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değişkenlik göstermediğini ortaya koymakla birlikte GİL gücü hesabında en az değişkenlik gösteren formül SRK/T olarak saptandı.

🔖

Cite This Article

ULAŞ, F., BALBABA, M., ÇANKAYA, C. (2011). Effect of diurnal variation on the intraocular lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry. Glokom Katarakt, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 173–177. https://ajindex.com/articles/226515

References (15)

  1. Olsen T.: Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992;18:125-129
  2. Devereux JG, Foster PJ, Baasanhu J, et al.: Anterior chamber depth measurement as a screening tool for primary angle-closure glaucoma in an East Asian population. Arch Ophthalmol. 2000;118:257-263
  3. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, et al.: Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:765-773
  4. Vogel A, Dick HB, Krummenauer F.: Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry: intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:1961-1968
  5. Kamış Ü, Kerimoğlu H, Bozkurt B, ve ark.: Göz içi lens gücünün hesaplanmasında IOLMaster ile alınan biyometrik ölçümlerin güvenilirliği Glo-Kat. 2009;4:234-237
  6. Hitzenberger CK, Drexler W, Dolezal C, et al.: Measurement of the axial length of cataract eyes by laser Doppler interferometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:1886-1893
  7. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al.: Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126:524-534
  8. Kuck H, Makabe R.: Vergleichende axiale Biometrie des Auges. Fortschr Ophthalmol. 1985;82:91-93
  9. Bang S, Edell E, Yu Q, et al.: Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using the IOLMaster in eyes with long axial length and a comparison of various formulas. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:503-506
  10. Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Tsimhoni O, Archer SM, et al.: Discrepancies between intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients. Ophthalmology. 2007;114:383-386
  11. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O.: Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:513-517
  12. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA.: Partial coherence interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye. 2002;16:552-556
  13. Freeman G, Pesudovs K.: The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:439-442
  14. Olsen T, Thorwest M.: Calibration of axial length measurement with the Zeiss IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1345-1350
  15. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, et al.: Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens