J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2015 Oct;56(10):1558-1565. 10.3341/jkos.2015.56.10.1558.

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

• Kim JW
• Lee H
• Jung JW
• Kim JS
• Lee HK
• Seo KY
• Kim EK
• Kim TI

• KMID: 2214415
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2015.56.10.1558

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare axial length (AL) and keratometry (K) using optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR, Lenstar LS900(R), 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(R), Haag-Streit), partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOL Master(R), 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(R) followed by Eyecubed and then Lenstar LS900(R). 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.

Keyword

Axial length; IOL-Master; Keratometry; Lenstar LS900; Optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR)

MeSH Terms

Biometry*
Cataract
Glycyrrhetinic Acid
Humans
Interferometry
Lenses, Intraocular*
Observational Study
Prospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Glycyrrhetinic Acid

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. Correlation between biometric data (axial length, keratometry) measured by Lenstar LS900® and other devices (Pearson correlation analysis). Axial length measured by Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (A) and A-scan (B). Keratometry measured by Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (C) and autokeratometer (D).

• 

  Figure 2. Bland-Altman plot of axial length between Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (A), Lenstar LS900® and A-scan (B), kera-tometry between Lenstar LS900® and IOL Master® (C), Lenstar LS900® and autokeratometer (D). LOA=limit of agreement.

Reference

References

1. 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.

2. Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T. Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algo-rithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:920–4.

3. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R. . Partial coherence inter-ferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 126:524–34.

4. Lam AK, Chan R, Pang PC. The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001; 21:477–83.

5. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of im-mersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000; 238:765–73.

6. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S. . A new optical low co-herence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:949–53.

7. Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Wälti R. . Comparison and evaluation of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116:2087–92.

8. Zhao J, Chen Z, Zhou Z. . Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar and comparison with two other non-contact biometric de-vices in myopes. Clin Exp Optom. 2013; 96:92–9.

9. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical bio-metry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37:513–7.

10. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G. Comparison of 2 laser instru-ments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:644–8.

11. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU. Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:807–10.

12. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990; 16:333–40.

13. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK. . Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:717–24.

14. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M. . Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation. Optometry. 2011; 82:140–7.

15. Shin JW, Seong M, Kang MH. . Comparison of ocular bio-metry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients between Lenstar(R) and IOL Master(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2012; 53:833–8.

16. Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S. . Keratometry with five dif-ferent techniques: a study of device repeatability and inter-device agreement. Int Ophthalmol. 2014; 34:869–75.

17. Huynh SC, Mai TQ, Kifley A. . An evaluation of keratometry in 6-year-old children. Cornea. 2006; 25:383–7.

18. Whang WJ, Byun YS, Joo CK. Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2012; 40:425–32.

19. Carney LG, Mainstone JC, Henderson BA. Corneal topography and myopia. A cross-sectional study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:311–20.

20. Speicher L. Intra-ocular lens calculation status after corneal re-fractive surgery. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2001; 12:17–29.

21. Bjeloš Ronč ević M, Bušić M, Cima I. . Intraobserver and inter-observer repeatability of ocular components measurement in cata-ract eyes using a new optical low coherence reflectometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2011; 249:83–7.

22. Stattin M, Zehetner C, Bechrakis NE, Speicher L. Comparison of IOL-Master 500 vs. Lenstar LS900 concerning the calculation of target refraction: a retrospective analysis. Ophthalmologe. 2015; 112:444–50.