Cargando…

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

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 device...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Juliane, Mehlan, Anne-Isabel, Lehman, Myriam, Cichocki, Vasyl, Druchkiv, Toam, Katz, J Linke, Stephan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PUBLISHED BY KNOWLEDGE E 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36620702
http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349
_version_ 1784862510363443200
author Juliane, Mehlan
Anne-Isabel, Lehman
Myriam, Cichocki
Vasyl, Druchkiv
Toam, Katz
J Linke, Stephan
author_facet Juliane, Mehlan
Anne-Isabel, Lehman
Myriam, Cichocki
Vasyl, Druchkiv
Toam, Katz
J Linke, Stephan
author_sort Juliane, Mehlan
collection PubMed
description 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 [Formula: see text] 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 [Formula: see text] 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 [Formula: see text] 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 [Formula: see text] 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 [Formula: see text] 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 [Formula: see text] 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (P [Formula: see text] 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9806315
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher PUBLISHED BY KNOWLEDGE E
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98063152023-01-06 Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices Juliane, Mehlan Anne-Isabel, Lehman Myriam, Cichocki Vasyl, Druchkiv Toam, Katz J Linke, Stephan J Ophthalmic Vis Res Original Article 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 [Formula: see text] 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 [Formula: see text] 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 [Formula: see text] 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 [Formula: see text] 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 [Formula: see text] 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 [Formula: see text] 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (P [Formula: see text] 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. PUBLISHED BY KNOWLEDGE E 2022-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9806315/ /pubmed/36620702 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349 Text en Copyright © 2022 Mehlan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Juliane, Mehlan
Anne-Isabel, Lehman
Myriam, Cichocki
Vasyl, Druchkiv
Toam, Katz
J Linke, Stephan
Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title_full Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title_fullStr Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title_full_unstemmed Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title_short Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices
title_sort biometry and intraocular lens power calculation by combined scheimpflug-placido disc versus optical interferometry devices
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9806315/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36620702
http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349
work_keys_str_mv AT julianemehlan biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices
AT anneisabellehman biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices
AT myriamcichocki biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices
AT vasyldruchkiv biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices
AT toamkatz biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices
AT jlinkestephan biometryandintraocularlenspowercalculationbycombinedscheimpflugplacidodiscversusopticalinterferometrydevices