Korean J Ophthalmol.  2009 Mar;23(1):6-12. 10.3341/kjo.2009.23.1.6.

Refractive Predictability of Partial Coherence Interferometry and Factors that can Affect It

• Kim SM
• Choi J
• Choi S

• KMID: 1115644
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2009.23.1.6

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the refractive predictability of a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometry device (IOL Master(R)) for cataract surgery and to investigate factors that may affect it.
METHODS
Retrospective review of 209 eyes from 151 patients that had undergone preoperative PCI biometry and an uneventful phacoemulsification cataract surgery with posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation was conducted. Prediction error defined as the intended refraction minus the postoperative refraction in spherical equivalent (SE) and the absolute error were analyzed according to IOL calculation formulas, patient characteristics, preoperative visual acuity (VA) and refraction, posterior subcapsular cataract (PSC), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and axial length (AL).
RESULTS
The overall refractive predictability of the PCI device was good. Generally, the SRK/T formula performed better than the SRK-II formula. Refractive predictability was slightly worse in eyes with > or =+2.0 diopters (D) of preoperative SE (with both SRK-II and SRK/T) and in eyes with an AL< or =23.0 mm (only with SRK-II. No other factors significantly affected the refractive predictability of the PCI, although poor VA, dense PSC, and poor SNR were closely interrelated.
CONCLUSIONS
The SRK/T formula performed significantly better than the SRK-II formula. Eyes with an AL< or =23.0 mm were associated with significantly greater hyperopic shifts in postoperative refraction with the SRK-II formula, but not with the SRK/T formula. A preoperative SE> or =+2.0D was related to a significantly greater hyperopic shift in postoperative refraction. With proper verification of measured data and a suitable IOL calculation formula, good refractive predictability is expected from PCI biometry regardless of patient characteristics, preoperative VA, SNR, PSC, and AL.

Keyword

IOL master; Partial coherence interferometry; Prediction error; Refractive predictability

MeSH Terms

Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Interferometry/*methods
Lens Implantation, Intraocular
*Lenses, Intraocular
Light
Male
Phacoemulsification/*methods
*Refraction, Ocular
Refractive Errors/*diagnosis/physiopathology
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Visual Acuity

Reference

1. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992. 18:125–129.

2. Cannors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002. 28:235–238.

3. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs. conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye. 2002. 16:552–556.

4. Norrby S, Lydahl E, Koranyi G, Taube M. Comparison of 2 A-scans. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:95–99.

5. Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Sacu S, et al. Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:1950–1955.

6. Choi JH, Rho GH. The reproducibility and accuracy of biometry parameter measurement from IOL Master®. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004. 45:1665–1673.

7. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence interferometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype I. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002. 28:224–229.

8. 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.

9. 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 Ophthalmolol. 2000. 238:765–773.

10. Goyal R, North RV, Morgan JE. Comparison of laser interferometry and ultrasound A-scan in the measurement of axial length. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2003. 81:331–335.

11. Kim HJ, Kim HJ, Joo CK. Comparison of IOL Master, A-scan and Orbscan II for measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003. 44:1519–1527.

12. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, et al. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: Outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002. 28:239–242.

13. Lee JT, Song JS, Kim HM. The accuracy of axial length measurement using partial coherence interferometry. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003. 44:812–817.

14. Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008. 19:13–17.

15. Suto C, Sata C, Shimamura E, et al. Influence of the signal-to-noise ration on the accuracy of IOLMaster measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:2062–2066.

16. Olsen T, Thorwest M. Calibration of axial length measurements with the Zeiss IOLMaster. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:1345–1350.

17. Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Blom E, Dick B. Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003. 29:741–746.

18. Song BY, Yang KJ, Yoon KC. Accuracy of partial coherence interferometry in intraocular lens power calculation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2005. 46:775–780.

19. Häsemeyer S, Hugger P, Jonas JB. Preoperative biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence laser interferometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003. 241:251–252.

20. Ueda T, Taketani F, Ota T, Hara Y. Impact of nuclear cataract density on postoperative refractive outcome: IOL Master versus ultrasound. Ophthalmologica. 2007. 221:384–387.

21. Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, et al. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. The lens opacities classification system III. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993. 111:831–836.

22. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001. 27:861–867.

23. Eleftheriadis H. IOL Master biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003. 87:960–963.

24. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002. 28:230–234.

25. Hwang JS, Lee JH. Comparison of the IOL Master® and A-scan ultrasound: Refractive Results of 96 consecutive cases. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007. 48:27–32.

26. Olsen T. Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007. 85:84–87.

27. Elder MJ. Predicting the refractive outcome after cataract surgery: the comparison of different IOLs and SRK-II and SRK-T. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002. 86:620–622.

28. Freeman G, Pesudovs K. The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOL Master. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005. 83:439–442.

29. 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.

30. Prinz A, Neumayer T, Buehl W, et al. Influence of severity of nuclear cataract on optical biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006. 32:1161–1165.

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

32. Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW. Intraocular lens power calculation using the IOLMaster and various formulas in eyes with long axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008. 34:262–267.

33. Chung JK, Choe CM, You YS, Lee SJ. Biometry with partial coherence interferometry and ultrasonography in high myopes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006. 47:355–361.

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

35. Preussner PR. Accuracy limits in IOL calculation: current status. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 2007. 224:893–899.

36. Leinonen J, Laakkonen E, Laatikainen L. Repeatability (test-retest variability) of refractive error measurement in clinical settings. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006. 84:532–536.