Thomas Olsen1. 1. University Eye Clinic, Aarhus Kommunehospital, Aarhus, Denmark. tkolsen@dadlnet.dk
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to demonstrate how the level of accuracy in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation can be improved with optical biometry using partial optical coherence interferometry (PCI) (Zeiss IOLMaster) and current anterior chamber depth (ACD) prediction algorithms. METHODS: Intraocular lens power in 461 consecutive cataract operations was calculated using both PCI and ultrasound and the accuracy of the results of each technique were compared. To illustrate the importance of ACD prediction per se, predictions were calculated using both a recently published 5-variable method and the Haigis 2-variable method and the results compared. All calculations were optimized in retrospect to account for systematic errors, including IOL constants and other off-set errors. RESULTS: The average absolute IOL prediction error (observed minus expected refraction) was 0.65 dioptres with ultrasound and 0.43 D with PCI using the 5-variable ACD prediction method (p < 0.00001). The number of predictions within +/- 0.5 D, +/- 1.0 D and +/- 2.0 D of the expected outcome was 62.5%, 92.4% and 99.9% with PCI, compared with 45.5%, 77.3% and 98.4% with ultrasound, respectively (p < 0.00001). The 2-variable ACD method resulted in an average error in PCI predictions of 0.46 D, which was significantly higher than the error in the 5-variable method (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of IOL power calculation can be significantly improved using calibrated axial length readings obtained with PCI and modern IOL power calculation formulas incorporating the latest generation ACD prediction algorithms.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to demonstrate how the level of accuracy in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation can be improved with optical biometry using partial optical coherence interferometry (PCI) (Zeiss IOLMaster) and current anterior chamber depth (ACD) prediction algorithms. METHODS: Intraocular lens power in 461 consecutive cataract operations was calculated using both PCI and ultrasound and the accuracy of the results of each technique were compared. To illustrate the importance of ACD prediction per se, predictions were calculated using both a recently published 5-variable method and the Haigis 2-variable method and the results compared. All calculations were optimized in retrospect to account for systematic errors, including IOL constants and other off-set errors. RESULTS: The average absolute IOL prediction error (observed minus expected refraction) was 0.65 dioptres with ultrasound and 0.43 D with PCI using the 5-variable ACD prediction method (p < 0.00001). The number of predictions within +/- 0.5 D, +/- 1.0 D and +/- 2.0 D of the expected outcome was 62.5%, 92.4% and 99.9% with PCI, compared with 45.5%, 77.3% and 98.4% with ultrasound, respectively (p < 0.00001). The 2-variable ACD method resulted in an average error in PCI predictions of 0.46 D, which was significantly higher than the error in the 5-variable method (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of IOL power calculation can be significantly improved using calibrated axial length readings obtained with PCI and modern IOL power calculation formulas incorporating the latest generation ACD prediction algorithms.