ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted.Two hundred and sixty-two eyes of 262 patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with IOL implantation at the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from November 2018 to November 2019 were enrolled.Preoperative biometry for cataract surgery was performed using IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500.IOL power was calculated through the built-in formulas, Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ, Hoffer Q and SRK/T of the two devices.The difference in IOL power calculation between the two devices was analyzed through the prediction error of IOL power calculation using different formulas across different axial length (AL) ranges.This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (No.2020-038-K-33). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before the surgery.Results:There was no significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) between IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T over the entire AL range (all at P >0.05). The MAE of IOLMaster 500 was 0.47 (0.24, 0.90) D, which was significantly lower than 0.50 (0.28, 0.99) D of IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ formula ( Z=-3.120, P=0.002). When AL was <22.0 mm and ≥24.5 mm-<26.0 mm, there was no significant difference in MAE between the two devices using the four formulas (all at P >0.05). When AL was ≥22.0 mm-24.5 mm, there was no significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T (all at P >0.05), but 0.42 (0.18, 0.75) D from IOLMaster 500 was smaller than 0.45 (0.25, 0.79) D from IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ, showing a statistically significant difference ( Z=-3.487, P <0.001). But the difference was negligible and therefore was of no clinical significance.When AL was ≥26.0 mm, there was no statistically significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ and SRK/T, but 0.66 (0.38, 1.00) D from IOLMaster 500 was significantly smaller than 0.98 (0.62, 1.32) D from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q ( Z=-3.046, P=0.002). Conclusions:The refractive prediction accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T is similar over the entire AL range.For patient with long AL, the IOL calculation from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q is significantly larger than that from IOLMaster 500, which requires extra caution in clinical practice.The accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 for IOL prediction is very similar.
ABSTRACT
@#AIM: To explore the postoperative refractive error and influence factors using the Optical Biometry(IOL Master)in patients with silicone oil filled eye complicated cataract after silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery.<p>METHODS: From August 2020 to November 2020 in the Affiliated Eye Hospital of Nanchang University, 41 patients with silicone oil removal combined with cataract surgery were divided into 2 groups: 18 patients(18 eyes)in high myopia group and 23 patients(23 eyes)in non-high myopia group. Collected and recorded the patients' IOL Master measurement data. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS20.0.<p>RESULTS: The mean spherical degree or astigmatism of the IOL Master measurement and refraction in high myopia and non-high myopia group performed by paired <i>t</i>-test(<i>P</i>>0.05). The mean axial difference ΔAL were -0.28±0.29 and 0.05±0.31mm between the two groups has no difference(<i>P</i><0.05), while ΔK, mean absolute refractive error(MARE)and Δastigmatism(<i>P</i>>0.05). The preoperative and postoperative axial length(AL)in high myopia groups were 28.37±1.73 and 28.10±1.55mm(<i>t</i>=3.994, <i>P</i><0.05), yet the non-high myopia group(<i>P</i>>0.05). Bivariate linear correlation analysis: in the high myopia group, there was a moderate positive correlation between preoperative AL and MARE(<i>r</i>=0.742, <i>P</i><0.05), and a moderate negative correlation between ΔAL and MARE(<i>r</i>=-0.646, <i>P</i><0.05), but in non-high myopia group, preoperative AL, ΔAL, preoperative K, ΔK had no correlation(<i>P</i>>0.05).<p>CONCLUSION: IOL Master performed the small biostatistical error and high measurement accuracy of the intraocular lens in patients with silicone oil filled eye complicated cataract. The longer preoperative AL, the more changes in the axial length after silicone oil removal, and the greater the refractive error of patients with high myopia silicone oil filled eye complicated cataract.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To compare central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained by the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and ultrasound pachymetry (UP) in normal and cataractous eyes. Methods: Eighty eyes of healthy subjects were included in the study. Each subject was assessed by four different methods of measurements using the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and UP by a single examiner. To assess the intraobserver repeatability, three consecutive measurements were taken for the AL-Scan. Results: The mean CCT [± standard deviation (SD)] for the AL-Scan, Lenstar LS900, Galilei, and UP were 554.6 ± 30.9 ?m, 542.9 ± 31.3 ?m, 570.7 ± 30 ?m, and 552.7 ± 32.8 ?m, respectively. The differences between pairs of mean CCT for the methods are statistically significant for the pairs of Galilei–UP, AL-Scan–Galilei, and Lenstar LS900–Galilei. Bland–Altman plots showed that AL-Scan–UP have the closest agreement, followed by Lenstar–UP and AL-Scan–Lenstar. Galilei was found to have the poorest agreement with the other three methods. The intraobserver repeatability of the AL-Scan was very good with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.980. Conclusion: We found that CCT measurements between the AL-Scan–UP, Lenstar LS900–UP, and AL-Scan–Lenstar LS900 showed very strong correlation and comparable agreement. AL-Scan–UP showed the closest agreement and these devices can be used interchangeably in clinical practice. Galilei significantly showed higher value of CCT compared to other methods. It was also observed that the Al-Scan had excellent intraobserver repeatability.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To validate the possibility of IOLMaster measurement as a predictor of intraoperative and postoperative complications during phacoemulsification surgery. METHODS: In this study, 2,107 eyes from 1,456 patients who underwent phacoemulsification with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation were divided into two groups according to the possibility of performing optical biometry with the IOLMaster (measurable group: 1,746 eyes from 1,141 patients, unmeasurable group: 361 eyes from 315 patients). The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-one eyes (17.1%) could not be measured using optical biometry. Dense posterior subcapsular cataract (56.0%) was the main factor resulting in failed measurements with optical biometry, followed by anterior subcapsular cataract (12.5%). The rates of posterior capsule rupture and radial tear were significantly higher in the unmeasurable group than in the measurable group (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Corneal edema was significantly higher in the unmeasurable group (16.1%) than in the measurable group (5.3%) at postoperative 1 week (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Possibility of optical biometry measurement can be used as a simple predictor of intraoperative and postoperative complications of phacoemulsification surgery. Surgeons should pay close attention to patients who cannot be measured using IOLMaster.