Journals / Southern Clinics of Istanbul Eurasia / 2021 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Between Two Different Optical Biometers

Pages
299–303
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)

Conclusion: These findings show the AL – Scan provides comparable postoperative results with the IOL Master after implantation of the same intraocular lenses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare refractive results after cataract surgery using AL-Scan and IOL-Master500 optical biometers for intraocular lens power calculation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: 78 eyes of 78 consecutive patients undergoing cataract surgery and implanted with the same intraocular lens (Eyecryl Plus HSAS600) were included in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: These findings show the AL – Scan provides comparable postoperative results with the IOL Master after implantation of the same intraocular lenses.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: To compare refractive results after cataract surgery using AL-Scan and IOL-Master500 optical biometers for intraocular lens power calculation. Methods: 78 eyes of 78 consecutive patients undergoing cataract surgery and implanted with the same intraocular lens (Eyecryl Plus HSAS600) were included in the study. In Group 1, preoperative biometry was performed with AL-Scan, and in Group 2, with IOL Master 500. Uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), and mean absolute refractive error (MARE) at preoperative and 6-month follow-up visits were recorded. Results: The postoperative mean MARE was -0.28±0.30 Diopter (D) and –0.32±1.13 D in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.38). At the 6th month visit, 92% of eyes in Group 1 were within 0.50 D of target refraction in Group 1 and, 93% of eyes in Group 2 were within 0.50 D (p=0.99). Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity improved significantly in both groups (p<0.001). The mean postoperative UDVA were 0.72±0.12 and 0.66±0.16 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p=0.20). No sight-threatening complication occurred during or after the operation in either group. Conclusion: These findings show the AL – Scan provides comparable postoperative results with the IOL Master after implantation of the same intraocular lenses.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARSAN, A., KANAR, H. S., KIVRAK, U., OKLAR, M., KURNA, S. A. (2021). Comparison of Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Between Two Different Optical Biometers. Southern Clinics of Istanbul Eurasia, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 3, 299–303. https://ajindex.com/articles/415185

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Bell NP, Feldman RM, Zou Y, Prager TC. New technology for examining the anterior segment by ultrasonic biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:121–5
  2. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS. A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:458–62
  3. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;238:765–73
  4. Olsen T. Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2007;85:84–7
  5. Hsieh YT, Wang IJ. Intraocular lens power measured by partial coherence interferometry. Optom Vis Sci 2012;89:1697–701
  6. Kunavisarut P, Poopattanakul P, Intarated C, Pathanapitoon K. Accuracy and reliability of IOL master and A-scan immersion biometry in silicone oil-filled eyes. Eye (Lond) 2012;26:1344–8
  7. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S. Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2014;40:709–15
  8. Grulkowski I, Liu JJ, Zhang JY, Potsaid B, Jayaraman V, Cable AE, et al. Reproducibility of a long-range swept-source optical coherence tomography ocular biometry system and comparison with clinical biometers. Ophthalmology 2013;120:2184–90
  9. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, et al. Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:1277–81
  10. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M. Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye (Lond) 2009;23:149–52
  11. Hahn U, Krummenauer F, Kölbl B, Neuhann T, Schayan-Araghi K, Schmickler S, et al. Determination of valid benchmarks for outcome indicators in cataract surgery: a multicenter, prospective cohort trial. Ophthalmology 2011;118:2105–12
  12. Rozema JJ, Wouters K, Mathysen DG, Tassignon MJ. Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;158:1111–20
  13. Ha A, Wee WR, Kim MK. Comparative efficacy of the new opti- cal biometer on intraocular lens power calculation (AL-Scan versus IOLMaster). Korean J Ophthalmol 2018;32:241–8
  14. Akkaya Turhan S, Toker E. Comparison of ımmersion ultrasound biometry