Amsterdam 2013 Programme Satellite Meetings Registration Exhibition Virtual Exhibition Hotels Visa Letter Invitation
Search Abstracts by author or title
(results will display both Free Papers & Poster)

Comparison of accuracy for IOL power calculation between partial coherence interferometry (LENSTAR LS900) and ultrasonography (US)

Poster Details

First Author: M.Jung SOUTH KOREA

Co Author(s):    J. Noh              

Abstract Details



Purpose:

To compare the accuracy of IOL power calculation in cataract patients with different emmetropic IOL power between two methods - partial coherence interferometry (Lenstar LS900, Haag Streit AG, Koeniz, Switzerland) and ultrasonography (US) & autorefractokeratometry (ARK).

Setting:

Department of Ophthalmology, Soonchunhyang University, College of Medicine

Methods:

185 eyes of 185 patients who underwent uneventful cataract surgery were evaluated. Axial length (AXL) was measured using Lenstar and US (Hiscan, Optikon, Italy). Keratometric value was measured using Lenstar and ARK (KR7100, Topcon, Japan). IOL power was calculated using the SRK/II formula. Patients were divided into two groups based on the difference of calculated IOL power for emmetropia between two methods; above 0.5 diopter (error group) or not (control group). AXL, keratometric value, mean absolute error [postoperative spherical equivalent – target refractive error] and success rate (mean absolute error < 0.50 diopter) were compared.

Results:

There were 116 eyes in error group and 69 eyes in control group. 62.70% of 185 eyes were showed difference in calculated IOL power between two methods. AXL(mm) obtained using Lenstar was significantly longer in error group than using US (p<0.01); 22.89 ±0.96 (US), 23.18 ±0.96 (Lenstar). Keratometric value (D) was significantly different in error group (P<0.01); 44.39 ±1.57 (US), 44.53 ±1.64 (Lenstar). The mean absolute error (D) obtained using US was smaller than Lenstar in error group (p=0.04); 0.38 ±0.31 (US), 0.45 ḟ0.36 (Lenstar). Whereas there was no difference in control group between two methods except AXL obtained using Lenstar was longer than US. But the difference in success rate was not statistically significant between two methods; 69.04%(US), 63.72%(Lenstar).

Conclusions:

The difference in calculated IOL power was relatively common (62.70%) between two methods. Eyes with long AXL and steep keratometric values were had tendency with difference of emmetropic IOL power. Despite of the smaller mean absolute error obtained using US than Lenstar, there was no difference in success rate between two methods. And there is a tendency for myopic shifts when using US, whereas hyperopic shifts using Lenstar. These factors should be considered in IOL power determination.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE

Back to previous