Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using Low-Coherence Reflectometry with Other Devices for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation

Ji Won Kim, Hoon Lee, Ji Won Jung, Jin Sun Kim, Hyung Keun Lee, Kyoung Yul Seo, Eung Kweon Kim, Tae Im Kim
2015 Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society  
Purpose: To compare axial length (AL) and keratometry (K) using optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR, Lenstar LS900 ® , Haag-Streit, Bern, Switzerland) with current ocular biometry devices and evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation. Methods: In this prospective, comparative observational study of eyes with cataracts, AL and K were measured using an OLCR device (Lenstar LS900 ® , Haag-Streit), partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOL Master ® , Carl Zeiss, Jena,
more » ... , Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany), A-scan (Eyecubed) and automated keratometry (KR-7100, Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). IOL power calculation was performed using the Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff (SRK/T) formula. The IOL prediction error (PE) was calculated by subtracting the predicted IOL power from the postoperative (PO) IOL power (PO 4 weeks, PO 12 weeks). Results: A total of 50 eyes of 39 patients with cataracts (mean age 67.12 ± 8.51 years) were evaluated in this study. AL and K were not significantly different between the OLCR device and other devices (analysis of variance [ANOVA], p = 0.946, 0.062, respectively). The mean PE in IOL power calculation was -0.22 ± 0.50D with the OLCR device, 0.08 ± 0.45D with the PCI device and -0.01 ± 0.48D with A-scan and automated keratometry (ANOVA, p = 0.006). The highest percentage of eyes with PE smaller than ± 0.5D was IOL Master ® followed by Eyecubed and then Lenstar LS900 ® . The mean absolute PE was not statistically significant among the 3 devices (ANOVA, p = 0.684). Conclusions: Ocular biometry measurements were comparable between the OLCR device and the PCI ultrasound device. However, the IOL power prediction showed significant differences among the 3 devices. Therefore, the differences in application of these devices should be considered. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2015;56(10):1558-1565
doi:10.3341/jkos.2015.56.10.1558 fatcat:exm4z76jczbuhjijx37fxfixqy