Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices.

IF 1.6 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349
Mehlan Juliane, Lehman Anne-Isabel, Cichocki Myriam, Druchkiv Vasyl, Katz Toam, Stephan J Linke
{"title":"Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices.","authors":"Mehlan Juliane,&nbsp;Lehman Anne-Isabel,&nbsp;Cichocki Myriam,&nbsp;Druchkiv Vasyl,&nbsp;Katz Toam,&nbsp;Stephan J Linke","doi":"10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the results of the current gold standard, laser interferometry, and keratometry by the IOL-Master, with a newly developed Galilei G6 using raytracing software Okulix for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For comparison of the IOL-power calculation of both devices, we analyzed the difference between the actual one-month postoperative subjective refraction and the theoretically calculated target refraction before cataract surgery. The IOL was selected according to the IOL Master recommendation aiming for emmetropia after surgery.We analyzed the differences of the measurements of the basic biometric data in 205 healthy eyes by each device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study included 205 healthy, unoperated eyes from 117 patients (61 women, 56 men) aged 20 to 75 years. Twenty-two eyes of cataract patients were also included in this retrospective study design. The mean difference between the prediction of the postoperative refraction and the refraction actually achieved was 0.03 D for the IOL Master and -0.23 D for the Galilei G6. The difference was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.059). The difference between the IOL power calculation of the IOL Master and the calculation of the G6 was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.064). The difference between the predicted refraction of the G6 and the refraction achieved after one month was also not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.12) and neither was the difference between the predicted refraction of the IOL Master and the achieved refraction (<i>P</i> = 0.39). The mean axial length was calculated as 24.21 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 <math><mo>±</mo></math> 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (<i>P</i> <math><mo><</mo></math> 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the laser interferometry/keratometry performed by the IOL Master and the interferometry/raytracing biometry strategy performed by the Galilei G6 demonstrated equal results when executing the IOL power calculation before cataract surgery in eyes with no prior ocular surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":16586,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research","volume":"17 4","pages":"453-461"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806315/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ophthalmic & Vision Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the results of the current gold standard, laser interferometry, and keratometry by the IOL-Master, with a newly developed Galilei G6 using raytracing software Okulix for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.

Methods: For comparison of the IOL-power calculation of both devices, we analyzed the difference between the actual one-month postoperative subjective refraction and the theoretically calculated target refraction before cataract surgery. The IOL was selected according to the IOL Master recommendation aiming for emmetropia after surgery.We analyzed the differences of the measurements of the basic biometric data in 205 healthy eyes by each device.

Results: Our study included 205 healthy, unoperated eyes from 117 patients (61 women, 56 men) aged 20 to 75 years. Twenty-two eyes of cataract patients were also included in this retrospective study design. The mean difference between the prediction of the postoperative refraction and the refraction actually achieved was 0.03 D for the IOL Master and -0.23 D for the Galilei G6. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). The difference between the IOL power calculation of the IOL Master and the calculation of the G6 was not statistically significant (P = 0.064). The difference between the predicted refraction of the G6 and the refraction achieved after one month was also not statistically significant (P = 0.12) and neither was the difference between the predicted refraction of the IOL Master and the achieved refraction (P = 0.39). The mean axial length was calculated as 24.21 ± 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 ± 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 ± 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 ± 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 ± 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 ± 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Both the laser interferometry/keratometry performed by the IOL Master and the interferometry/raytracing biometry strategy performed by the Galilei G6 demonstrated equal results when executing the IOL power calculation before cataract surgery in eyes with no prior ocular surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
结合scheimpflud - placido圆盘与光学干涉测量装置的生物计量和人工晶状体度数计算。
目的:比较现有的金标准、激光干涉测量和IOL- master与新开发的Galilei G6使用光线追踪软件Okulix进行人工晶状体(IOL)度数计算的结果。方法:比较两种设备的iol度数计算,分析术后1个月的实际主观屈光度与术前理论计算的目标屈光度的差异。根据IOL专家建议选择针对术后斜视的人工晶状体。我们分析了不同设备对205只健康眼睛基本生物特征数据测量的差异。结果:我们的研究纳入了117例20至75岁的健康、未手术的眼睛(61名女性,56名男性)。22只白内障患者的眼睛也被纳入这项回顾性研究设计。预测术后屈光度与实际屈光度的平均差值为:IOL Master为0.03 D, Galilei G6为-0.23 D。差异无统计学意义(P = 0.059)。IOL Master计算IOL度数与G6计算IOL度数差异无统计学意义(P = 0.064)。G6的预测屈光度与1个月后的屈光度差异无统计学意义(P = 0.12), IOL Master的预测屈光度与实际屈光度差异无统计学意义(P = 0.39)。使用IOL Master计算平均眼轴长度为24.21±0.80 mm,使用Galilei G6装置计算平均眼轴长度为24.27±0.82 mm。人工晶状体的前房深度(ACD)平均值为3.46±0.23 mm, Galilei的平均值为3.51±0.25 mm。IOL主晶状体的白色与白色(WTW)值比较,其平均值为12.32±0.31,Galilei平均值为12.21±0.28。所有这些差异(Galileo和IOL Master测量值之间)都具有统计学意义(P < 0.001)。结论:在未做过白内障手术的患者白内障术前进行人工晶状体度数计算时,采用人工晶状体大师激光干涉/角膜测量与Galilei G6干涉/光线追踪生物测量的结果相同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Application of Artificial Intelligence in Ophthalmology: An Updated Comprehensive Review. Clinical Manifestations and Outcomes of Ocular Graft Versus Host Disease following Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation. Clinical Outcomes of Stage 2 (Pivotal) Use of a Modified Keratoprosthesis Device (ORC-KPro) in Patients with End-stage Corneal Blindness. Doxycycline versus Curcumin for Inhibition of Matrix Metalloproteinase Expression and Activity Following Chemically Induced Inflammation in Corneal Cells. Evaluation of Foveal Vasculature by Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography after Pan-Retinal Photocoagulation versus Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Injections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1