Comparison of IOL power & axial length estimated by optical biomicroscopy and ultrasonic biometry.
Aim: To compare IOL power & axial length estimated by optical biometry (OB) and ultrasonic biometry (UB).
Material & methods: A prospective & comparative study was planned to compare axial length & IOL power calculated by Appa Scan AME - 01A (Appasamy Associates, India) (UB) & IOL master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) (OB). Autokeratometry evaluated using IOL master 500 & SRK/T formula were taken for IOL power estimation. Spss software version 20.0 was used for analysis.
Results: Overall agreement between UB & OB for axial length & IOL power was excellent ( weighted kappa 0.807 & 0.825 respectively).
Conclusion: Ultrasound biometry, a cost-effective method for IOL power & axial length calculation, still holds value as compared to optical biometry for routine cataract surgeries.
Rao GN, Khanna R, Payal A. The global burden of cataract. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2011; 22(1):4-9. doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3283414fc8.
Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet. 2017; 390(10094):600-612. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30544-5.
Mohan M. Survey of blindness-India (1986–1989). In: Summary Results: Programme for the Control of Blindness. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India: New Delhi; 1992
Dandona L, Dandona R, Srinivas M Giridhar P, Vilas K, Prasad MN, et al. Blindness in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42(5):908-16.
Congdon N, Vingerling JR, Klein BE, et al. Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(4):487–494. doi: 10.1001/archopht.122.4.487.
Watson A, Armstrong R. Contact or immersion techniques for axial length measurement? Aust NZ J Ophthalmol. 1999; (1):49-51. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1606.1999.00162.x.
Leaming DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members: 2003 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30(4):892-900. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.02.064.
Connors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(2):235-8. doi: 10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01179-8.
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 Ophthalmol. 2000; 238(9):765-73. doi: 10.1007/s004170000188.
Narvaez J, Cherwek DH, Stulting RD, et al. Comparing immersion ultrasound with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2008;39(1):30-4. doi: 10.3928/15428877-20080101-08.
Raymond S, Favilla I, Santamaria L. Comparing ultrasound biometry with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculations: a randomized study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2009;50(6):2547-52.
Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond). 2002;16(5):552-6.
Montés-Micó R, Carones F, Buttacchio A, Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D. Comparison of immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry for ocular biometry in cataract patients. J Refract Surg. 2011;27(9):665-71.
Copyright (c) 2021 Author (s). Published by Siddharth Health Research and Social Welfare Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.