Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry, IOLMaster and IOL station measurements in IOL calculation with Haigis and SRK-T formulas

Session Details

Session Title: Cataract Surgery Outcomes/Practice Styles/Biometry

Session Date/Time: Monday 12/09/2016 | 14:00-16:00

Paper Time: 15:36

Venue: Auditorium C6

First Author: : K.Zuñiga Posselt MEXICO

Co Author(s): :    I. Ferreira   F. Solorio   F. Iturbe   E. Chavez           

Abstract Details

Purpose:

Our main purpose was to correlate the measurement of axial length, keratometry and anterior chamber depth using two different interferometers: IOL Master (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA) and IOL Station (NIDEK Inc., Fremont, CA) and those obtained with immersion ultrasound biometry (IUB) and auto refractometer, in order to compare the results in IOL power calculation using fourth generation formulas.

Setting:

To obtain excellent results in patients submitted to IOL implanting the surgeon must calculate the power of the IOL. The process of selection of lenses include very accurate measurements The availability to latest technology in many centers is limited, therefore we compared IOL power calculated using data, IUB and interferometry

Methods:

We performed a prospective comparative analysis. We included patients submitted to cataract surgery in the period of September 2014 to January 2015. Each patient underwent a measurement of several variables including axial length, anterior chamber depth, and keratometry. The first two were obtained by IUB, as well as two different interferometers, the IOL Master (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., Dublin, CA, USA), and IOL Station (NIDEK Inc., Fremont, CA). Keratometry was obtained from auto-refractometer and both interferometers. Target refraction and IOL power calculation was done using SRK-T and Haigis formulas.

Results:

A total of 60 eyes from 39 patients were included. Eyes measured longer with the interferometers method compared with IUB (23.12 ± 0.928 versus 23.05 ± 88.5 mm, t=2.345; p=0.02). A significant difference was also found in anterior chamber depth measured with IUB versus both interferometers, (p≤0.001). However, we didn´t find any statistical significance between neither axial length nor anterior chamber depth measured with IOL Master and IOL Station. Additionally, there was not a difference between IOL power calculated with either formula using the parameters obtained with any of the foretold three methods.

Conclusions:

In summary, calculation of IOL power using third and fourth generation formulas from parameters obtained with IUB, IOL Master, and IOL Station are equally accurate, despite the differences in anterior chamber depth. This is highly relevant since the accurate and precise calculation of IOL power can be done using a more accessible method by those who have no access to the use of latest technology.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE