Comparison of Optical and Ultrasound Biometry and Assessment of Using Both Methods in Practice
Authors:
R. Čech; T. Utíkal; J. Juhászová
Authors place of work:
Beskydské oční centrum, Nemocnice
ve Frýdku-Místku
primář MUDr. Radim Čech
Published in the journal:
Čes. a slov. Oftal., 70, 2014, No. 1, p. 3-9
Category:
Original Article
Částečně prezentováno ve formě přednášky během XVI. výročního sjezdu ČOS ve Špindlerově Mlýně dne 27. 10. 2008
Summary
Purpose:
The present study compares accuracy of optical biometry (OB) and ultrasound biometry (UB) based on postoperative best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) results, and assesses the extent of the usage of the measurement methods in current practice.
Methods:
335 eyes in total were operated for cataract at Beskydské oční centrum (Beskydy Eye Centre; BOC), Frýdek-Místek hospital, in the period between 7 February 2007 and 7 April 2010. All patients were examined using both IOL-Master and Ocu-Scan prior to the surgery. All surgeries were performed using microcoaxial phacoemulsification, 2,2 mm incision, implanting IOL AcrySof SP, SPN or SPN IQ. BCVA was examined three months after the surgery.
We first calculated medians of anterior-posterior axial length (AL) values measured using both methods; with both the whole set and individual subsets created according to the eye length. Difference between the two methods was calculated in mm.
We calculated accurate dioptric power of the IOL, which should have been implanted in the lens bag to ensure postoperative emmetropia, using BCVA results. With each eye, we determined the size of diopter variation of the IOL’s dioptric power value for emmetropia determined by an optical biometer from the accurate value of the IOL’s dioptric power. Ultrasound biometry results were processed in the same way. The SRK-T formula was used for calculation with each biometry. We also calculated the number of variations above 1 D and 2 D with both biometric methods.
Results:
The median of axial eye length measured using an optical biometer was 23,08 mm, and the median of axial eye length measured using ultrasound biometry was 22,93 mm. The difference between these values was 0,15 mm (150 microns), which equals the difference between average values of coincident measurement results.
Average variation of dioptric power of an implanted IOL from retrospectively established optimum value of the IOL’s optical power was 0,40 D lower with optical biometry and 0,16 D lower with ultrasound biometry. In the context of assessing the course of the curves of both methods created using a polynomial graph, this result confirms that the two methods correspond significantly, and therefore selecting any of the methods could not negatively impact determination of the implanted IOL’s dioptric power. Comparing the frequency of variations above 1D and 2,0 D with OB and UB from the accurate value of the IOL’s dioptric power, we discovered a substantially higher percentage of variations with UB – up to 25 % of the total set above 1,0 D.
Conclusion:
Results of comparing accuracy and comfort of AL measurement with both methods justify unambiguous preference of optical biometry over ultrasound biometry in current practice. If measurement using ultrasound probe is done correctly, results of both methods correspond significantly, and so the methods are mutually replaceable. Using ultrasound biometry is therefore adequate in case optical biometry cannot be used.
Key words:
optical and ultrasound biometry, accurate dioptric power of the IOL, formulas, polynomial graph.
Zdroje
1. Baráková, D.: Echografie v oftalmologii. Professional Publishing, Praha, 2002, 1. vyd., 152 stran.
2. Byrne S.T., Green R.L.: Ultrasound of the eye and orbit. USA, Mosby – an imprint of Elsevier Science, 2002, p. 505.
3. Brandser, R., Haaskjold, E., Droslum, J.: Accuracy of IOL calculation in cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand [online]. 1997; 75: 162–65 [cit. 2013-06-27]. Dostupné z .http: //onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.16000420.1997.tb00115.x.
4. Drexler W., Findl, O., Menapace, R. et al.: Partial coherence interferometry: A novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol, 1998; 126: 524–534.
5. Eleftheriadis H.: IOL Master biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. British J Ophtalmol, 2003; 87: 960–963.
6. Findl, O., Kriechbaum, K., Sacu, S.: Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg [online], 2003; 29, 10: 1950–1955 [cit. 2013-03-22]. Dostupné z: http://www. sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0886335003002438.
7. Fontes, B.M., Bruno, M., Fontes, L. et al.: Intraocular lens power calculation by measuring axial length with partial optical coherence and ultrasonic biometry. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmol [online]. 2011; 3 [cit. 2013-06-30]. DOI: 10.1590/S0004- 27492011000300004. Dostupné z http://www.scielo.br/ scielo. php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-27492011000300004.
8. Haigis, W., Kohnen, T.: Optical Coherence Biometry: Modern Cataract Surgery [online]. Karger: Dev Ophthalmol. Basel, 2002; [cit. 2013-06-18]. ISBN 10.1159/000060791. 119–130. Dostupné z http://www.karger.com/ Article/PDF/60791.
9. Haigis, W., Lege, B., Miller, N. et al.: Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculating according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Opthalmol. [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2013 Jun13]; 765–773. Available from: http://link. springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs 004170000188.pdf
10. Hřebcová, J., Vašků, A.: Srovnání kontaktní a imerzní ultrazvukové biometrie. Čes a Slov Oftal, 2008; 64: 1803–6597.
11. Hoffer, K. J.: Accuracy of ultrasound intraocular lens calculation. Arch Ophthalmol, 1981; 99: 1819–1823.
12. Hoffer, K. J.: Ultrasound velocities for axial eye length measurement. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1994; 20: 554–562.
13. Kavan, P., Vlková, E., Blatek, J.: Přesnost ultrazvukového měření axiální délky oka. Čs Oftal, 1991; 47, 2: 144–149.
14. Korynta, J., Cendelín, J.: Teoretické základy bezchybné biometrie. Čes a Slov Oftal, 1995; 51, 1: 44–55.
15. Korynta, J., Hycl, J., Křepelková, S.: Biometrie velmi krátkých bulbů. Čes a Slov oftal, 1998; 54, 2: 109–114.
16. Kuchynka, P. a kolektiv.: Oční lékařství. Praha: Grada Publishing, a.s., 2007. ISBN 978-80-247-1163-8. s. 395–414.
17. Mahdavi, S.: The IOLMaster and its role in modern cataract surgery, November 2011. Available at: http://sm2strategic. com/files/ IOLMaster-Holladay_r6.pdf(accessed 11 June 2013).
18. Mahdavi, S.: IOL Master 500: improving upon the gold standard in biometry for cataract surgery, 2010. Available at: http://sm2strategic.com/files/2010-Nov-The-IOLMaster-500-for- Cataract-Surgery-Carl-Zeiss.pdf (accessed 11 June 2013).
19. Nemeth, G., Nagy, A., Berta, A.: Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction using immersion ultrasound and optical biometry with and without formula optimization. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. [online]. 2012; 9: 1321–5 [cit. 2013-09-15]. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-012-2013-9. Epub 2012 Apr 13. Dostupné z: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 22527318.
20. Rajan, M.S., Keilhorn, I., Bell, J.A.: Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye: journal of The Royal College of Ophthalmologists. [online]. 2002; 16: 552–556 [cit. 2013-03-18]. Dostupné z: http://www.nature. com/eye/journal/v16/n5/abs/ 6700157a.html.
21. Ribeiro, F., Castanheira-Dinis, A., Dias, J.M.: Refractive error assessment: influence of different optical elements and current limits of biometric techniques. J Refract Surg. [online]. 2013; 29, 3: 206–12. [cit. 2013-07-12]. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20130129-07. Dostupné z: http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23446018.
22. Kuchynka, P., Továrek, L.: Onemocnění čočky. In Rozsíval, P. et al, Oční lékařství, Praha, Galén a Univezita Karlova, 2006. ISBN 80- 7262-404-0. p. 225–29.
23. Sanders, D.R., Retzlaff, J.A., Kraff, M.C.: A-scan biometry and IOL implant power calculations. American Academy of Ophthalmology, Focal Points – Clin. Mod. Ophthalmol., 1995; 10: 14.
24. Shammas, J. H.: Atlas of ophthalmic ultrasonography and biometry St. Louis, CV Mosby Co., 1984, 273–308.
25. Shen, P., Zheng, Y., Ding, X.: Biometric measurements in highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg [online], 2013; 39: 180–7 [cit. 2013-06-11]. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.064. Epub 2012 Dec 7. Dostupné z: http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23228592.
26. Skorkovská, Š., Michálek, J., Rubertová, M. et al.: Srovnání ultrazvukové a optické biometrie s ohledem na refrakci očí po operaci katarakty. Čes a Slov Oftal, 2004; 1: 24–29.
27. Steinert, R.F.: Cataract sugery, 2. vyd. USA: Saunders, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4160-3225-0. Část 4, p. 33-55. Dostupné z http://www. google.cz/books?hl=cs&lr=lang_en&id=NbM_ MAd0dLIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Phaco-chop&ots=A3GvvX_ a4t&sig=rbWpFtr-Dpf68UbqckioH8RnIF4&redir_esc=y.
Štítky
OphthalmologyČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology
2014 Číslo 1
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Optic Disc Drusen – Current Diagnostic Possibilities
- Scleral Buckling for Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment
- Foveal Hypoplasia Detection by Optical Coherence Tomography
- Assessment of Postoperative Anterior-Posterior Shift of AcrySof SP Lens in Time and Its Impact on Resulting Refraction