Comparing the postoperative refractive predictability of Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500 after a multifocal intraocular lens implantation / Comparação da previsibilidade refrativa pós-operatória do Pentacam HR e IOLMaster 500 após implante de lentes intraoculares multifocais

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the postoperative refractive predictability of IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam HR on the basis of keratometry and anterior chamber depth values in eyes with an indication for multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted on 118 eyes treated with phacoemulsification and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Only the eyes that achieved emmetropia in the dynamic refraction performed on postoperative day 30 were included. Haigis' formula was used in each case to calculate the intraocular lens power, and the intraocular lens with the target refraction closest to emmetropia was implanted. Four lens calculation scenarios were tested by combining keratometry and anterior chamber depth measurements obtained using the two devices. Results: IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam HR differed with regard to mean keratometry (D 0.07 ± 0.03 D; p=0.0065) and anterior chamber depth (D 0.08 ± 0.01 mm; p<0.001). In the analysis of covariance, the following differences were obtained using the Haigis' formula when confronted with the biometric values obtained by inserting keratometry and anterior chamber depth values, respectively: Penta/IOL x IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03; p<0.0001); Penta/Penta × IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03; p<0.0001); Penta/IOL × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.001); Penta/Penta × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.002); IOL/IOL × IOL/Penta (0.02 ± 0.03; p=0.865); and Penta/IOL × Penta/Penta (0.002 ± 0.03; p=0.99). The difference was smaller when measuring the anterior chamber depth using the IOLMaster 500, regardless of which device was used to measure keratometry. Conclusions: Pentacam HR significantly differed from IOLMaster 500 when calculating keratometry. As regards the anterior chamber depth, the two devices were equally accurate.

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a previsibilidade refrativa pós-operatória do IOLMaster 500 e Pentacam HR com base nos valores de ceratometria e profundidade de câmara anterior nos olhos com indicação de implante de lentes intraoculares multifocais. Métodos: Estudo retrospectivo realizado em 118 olhos tratados com facoemulsificação e implante de lentes intraoculares multifocal. Apenas os olhos que atingiram a emetropia na refração dinâmica no 30º dia pós-operatório foram incluídos. A fórmula de Haigis foi usada em cada caso para calcular o poder das lentes intraoculares, e a lente intraocular com a refração alvo mais próxima da emetropia foi implantada. Cenários de cálculo de quatro lentes foram testados pela combinação de medidas de ceratometria e profundidade de câmara anterior obtidas usando os dois dispositivos. Resultados: IOLMaster 500 e Pentacam HR diferiram quanto à média de ceratometria (D 0,07 ± 0,03 D; p=0,0065) e profundidade de câmara anterior (D 0,08 ± 0,01 mm; p<0,001). Na análise da covariância, as seguintes diferenças foram obtidas usando a fórmula de Haigis quando confrontadas com os valores biométricos obtidos pela inserção dos valores de ceratometria e profundidade de câmara anterior, respectivamente: Penta/IOL x IOL/Penta (0,13 ± 0,03; p<0,0001); Penta/Penta x IOL/Penta (0,13 ± 0,03; p<0,0001); Penta/IOL x IOL/IOL (0,11 ± 0,03; p=0,001); Penta/Penta x IOL/IOL (0,11 ± 0,03; p=0,002); IOL/IOL x IOL/Penta (0,02 ± 0,03; p=0,865); Penta/IOL x Penta/Penta (0,002 ± 0,03; p=0,99). A diferença foi menor ao medir a profundidade da câmara anterior usando o IOLMaster 500, independentemente de qual dispositivo foi usado para medir a ceratometria. Conclusões: O Pentacam HR diferiu significativamente do IOLMaster 500 no cálculo de ceratometria. Quanto à profundidade da câmara anterior, os dois dispositivos foram igualmente precisos.

Measurements of anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, anterior chamber angle, and pupil diameter using two Scheimpflug imaging devices / Medida da profundidade da câmara anterior, distância branco a branco, ângulo da câmara anterior e diâmetro pupilar usando dois dispositivos de imagens de Scheimpflug

Purpose: To compare the ocular anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, anterior chamber angle, and pupil diameter, as measured with two different Scheimpflug imaging devices. Methods: This transversal study included 80 right eyes from 80 subjects aged from 20 to 40 years. Their spherical equivalents ranged from -4.25 to +1.00 diopters (D). Each eye's anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, anterior chamber angle, and pupil diameter, were measured for far vision using both the Galilei G4 (double Scheimpflug camera) and the Pentacam HR (single Scheimpflug camera) systems. Results: Mean anterior chamber depths were calculated as 3.12 ± 0.23 mm and 3.19 ± 0.24 mm when measured with the Galilei G4 and the Pentacam HR, respectively. The mean white-to-white distance measured was 11.84 ± 0.31 mm and 11.90 ± 0.43 mm when measured with the Galilei G4 and the Pentacam HR, respectively. Mean pupil diameters were measured as 3.22 ± 0.58 mm and 3.22 ± 0.52 mm when measured with the Galilei G4 and the Pentacam HR, respectively. Finally, the mean anterior chamber angle was 34.30 ± 2.86 degrees when it was measured with the Galilei G4, and 39.26 ± 2.85 degrees when measured with the Pentacam HR. A comparative analysis revealed that the Galilei G4 yielded a significantly lower (P<0.05) measurement for the anterior chamber depth, anterior chamber angle, and pupil diameter, than the Pentacam HR system. Comparable values (P>0.05) for both devices were obtained for the white-to-white distance measurements. Conclusion: The Galilei G4 and Pentacam HR Scheimpflug systems cannot be used interchangeably because they produce significant measurement differences. .

Objetivo: Avaliar a medida da profundidade da câmara anterior, distância branco a branco, ângulo da câmara anterior e diâmetro pupilar usando dois dispositivos de imagens de Scheimpflug diferentes. Métodos: Este estudo transversal incluiu 80 olhos direitos de 80 indivíduos com idades entre 20 e 40 anos. O equivalente esférico variou de -4,25 a +1,00 dioptrias (D). A profundidade da câmara anterior de cada olho, a distância branco a branco, o ângulo da câmara anterior e o diâmetro pupilar, foram medidos para visão de longe usando tanto o Galilei G4 (câmera de Scheimpflug dupla) e os sistemas Pentacam HR (câmera de Scheimpflug simples). Resultados: A profundidade média da câmara anterior foi 3,12 ± 0,23 mm e 3,19 ± 0,24 mm, usando o Galilei G4 e o Pentacam HR, respectivamente. A distância média da medida de branco a branco com o Galilei G4 foi 11,84 ± 0,31 mm e com o HR Pentacam foi 11,90 ± 0,43 mm. A média do diâmetro pupilar foi 3,22 ± 0,58 mm e 3,22 ± 0,52 mm, medidos com o Galilei G4 e o Pentacam HR, respectivamente. Finalmente, a média do ângulo da câmara anterior foi de 34,30 ± 2,86 graus quando foi medido com o G4 Galileu, e 39,26 ± 2,85 graus com o Pentacam HR. A comparação revelou que o dispositivo Galilei G4 mediu significativamente menor (P<0,05) profundidade da câmara anterior, ângulo da câmara anterior e diâmetro da pupila do que o sistema de Pentacam HR, enquanto valores comparáveis (P>0,05) entre os dois dispositivos Scheimpflug foram obtidos para as medidas da distância branco a branco. Conclusão: O Galileu G4 e o Pentacam HR não podem ser usados indiferentemente, devido ás diferenças entre os dois aparelhos terem sido significativas sob o ponto de vista clínico. .

Accuracy of Biometry for Intraocular Lens Implantation Using the New Partial Coherence Interferometer, AL-scan

PURPOSE: To compare the refractive results of cataract surgery measured by applanation ultrasound and the new partial coherence interferometer, AL-scan. METHODS: Medical records of 76 patients and 104 eyes who underwent cataract surgery from January 2013 to June 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Biometries were measured using ultrasound and AL-scan and intraocular lens power was calculated using the SRK-T formula. Automatic refraction examination was done 1 month after the operation, and differences between the ultrasound group and AL-scan group were compared and analyzed by mean absolute error. RESULTS: Mean axial length measured preoperatively by the ultrasound method was 23.53 +/- 1.17 mm while the lengths measured using the AL-scan were 0.03 mm longer than that of the ultrasound group (23.56 +/- 1.15 mm). However, there was not a significant difference in this finding (p = 0.638). Mean absolute error was 0.34 +/- 0.27 diopters in the ultrasound group and 0.36 +/- 0.31 diopters in AL-scan group, which showed no significant difference (p = 0.946) in precision of predicting postoperative refraction. CONCLUSIONS: Although the difference was not statistically significant, intraocular lens calculations done by the AL-scan were nearly similar in predicting postoperative refraction compared to those of applanation ultrasound, however more precise measurements may be obtained if the axial length is longer than 24.4 mm. Except in the case of opacity in the media, which makes obtaining measurements with the AL-scan difficult, AL-scan could be a useful biometry in cataract surgery.

Performance of conventional biometry vs. integrated laser interferometry with keratometry device in intraocular lens measurement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the Conventional Biometry (CB) (Applanation Ultrasound and Keratometry) and the Integrated Laser Interferometry with Keratometry Device (LI) in the measurement of Intraocular Lens (IOL). MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective study of 100 eyes in 50 cataract patients was conducted. The IOL measurement using the LIfollowed by the CB was done on all eyes. The keratometry (K), axial length (AL), IOL power, and time required for both methods were compared in the same subject by ANOVA with repeated measurement. RESULTS: The LI could not obtain the AL in 14%. There were 21% that the signal to noise ratio was below 1.6. The AL obtained by the LI was significant higher compared to the CB by mean of 0.28 mm (p < 0.05). The K showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.05). There was statistically significantly higher IOL power calculated by the LI compared to the CB by mean of 0.63 D (p < 0.05). The time required for the LI was 2.77 +/- 1.44 min and the CB was 9.63 +/- 3.82 min (p < 0. 05). CONCLUSION: The LI required less time than the CB in measurement of the IOL but could not measure the AL in the group of patients with dense cataracts. The LI give a higher IOL power compared to the CB.