Copenhagen 2016 Registration Programme Exhibitor Information Virtual Exhibition Satellite Meetings Glaucoma Day 2016 Hotel Star Alliance

10 - 14 Sept. 2016, Bella Center, Copenhagen, Denmark

This Meeting has been awarded 27 CME credits


escrs app advert yo advert


Search Title by author or title

Comparison of two optical biometry devices

Poster Details

First Author: O. Reitblat ISRAEL

Co Author(s):    A. Levy   G. Kleinmann   E. Assia              

Abstract Details


To compare biometric measurements of a new optical device, the OA-2000 (Tomey), with the standard biometer, the IOLMaster 500 (Zeiss), and its influence on intraocular lens (IOL) selection using the conventional used formulas: SRK/T, Holladay-1 and Haigis.


Ein Tal Eye Center, Tel Aviv, Israel.


Consecutive patients, candidate for cataract extraction, with preoperative biometry using both IOLMaster and OA-2000 were reviewed. Preoperative measurements of each device were used for power calculation of the SN60WF IOL aiming for emmetropia using the SRK/T, Holladay-1 and Haigis formulas.


60-eyes (34-patients) were analyzed. Good correlation was found between IOLMaster and OA-2000 in axial-length(AL), anterior-chamber-depth(ACD) and average-keratometry(k) values(correlation-coefficients: 1.000, 0.891 and 0.966, respectively,P<0.001). Good agreement was seen between the two devices in AL and ACD measurements (mean difference of 0.01mm,P=0.001, agreement within 0.05mm in 90% of cases, and mean difference of 0.05mm,P=0.070, agreement within 0.25mm in 88% of cases, respectively). A statistically significant flatter k was measured by OA-2000(mean difference of 0.59D,P<0.001, agreement within 0.50D in 50% of cases). IOL selection was similar using the two devices in 75%, 72% and 70% for the SRK/T,Holladay-1 and Haigis formulas, respectively(inter-class-correlation 0.998,P<0.001).


Overall, the OA-2000 provided measurements in high agreement with the values of the IOLMaster. However, a statistically significant trend was noted in average k readings that resulted in IOL selection differences in up to 30%. Analysis of final refractive errors is required to determine which of the two is more accurate.

Financial Disclosure:


Back to Poster listing