Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Predictive accuracy of partial coherence interferometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography for intraocular lens power calculation.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study is to compare the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations made with partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOLMaster, version 5) and swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT, Argos). Axial length (AL), mean keratometry value (K), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were obtained using PCI and SS-OCT optical biometers. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were made using the Barret-Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and T2 formulas and compared the predictive accuracy between biometers. In 153 eyes (153 patients), axial length measurements made with PCI (24.65?±?2.35?mm) and SS-OCT (24.62?±?2.29?mm) were significantly different (P?

SUBMITTER: Whang WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6137182 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Predictive accuracy of partial coherence interferometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography for intraocular lens power calculation.

Whang Woong-Joo WJ Yoo Young-Sik YS Kang Min-Ji MJ Joo Choun-Ki CK

Scientific reports 20180913 1

The purpose of this study is to compare the predictive accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations made with partial coherence interferometry (PCI, IOLMaster, version 5) and swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT, Argos). Axial length (AL), mean keratometry value (K), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were obtained using PCI and SS-OCT optical biometers. Intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations were made using the Barret-Universal II, Haigis, Hoffer Q, SRK/T, and T2 formulas and c ...[more]

PMID: 30214016

Similar Datasets

Refractive prediction of four different intraocular lens calculation formulas compared between new swept source optical coherence tomography and partial coherence interferometry.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the biometry and prediction of postoperative refractive outcomes of four different formulae (Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay1, Barrett Universal II) obtained by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers and partial coherence interferometry (PCI; IOLMaster ver 5.4).MethodsWe compared the biometric values of SS-OCT (ANTERION, Heidelberg Engineering Inc., Heidelberg, Germany) and PCI (IOLMaster, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Predictive errors calculated using four different formulae (Haigis, SRKT, Holladay1, Barrett Universal II) were compared at 1 month after cataract surgery.ResultsThe mean preoperative axial length (AL) showed no statistically significant difference between SS-OCT and PCI (SS-OCT: 23.78 ± 0.12 mm and PCI: 23.77 ± 0.12 mm). The mean anterior chamber depth (ACD) was 3.30 ± 0.04 mm for SS-OCT and 3.23 ± 0.04 mm for PCI, which was significantly different between the two techniques. The mean corneal curvature also differed significantly between the two techniques. The difference in mean arithmetic prediction error was significant in the Haigis, SRKT, and Holladay1 formulae. The difference in mean absolute prediction error was significant in all four formulae.ConclusionsSS-OCT and PCI demonstrated good agreement on biometric measurements; however, there were significant differences in some biometric values. These differences in some ocular biometrics can cause a difference in refractive error after cataract surgery. New type SS-OCT was not superior to the IOL power prediction calculated by PCI.

| S-EPMC8096100 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulas using a swept-source optical biometer.

Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the accuracy of the five commonly used intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas integrated to a swept-source optical biometer, the IOLMaster 700, and evaluate the extent of bias within each formula for different ocular biometric measurements. METHODS:The study included patients undergoing cataract surgery with a ZCB00 IOL implant, using IOLMaster 700 optical biometry. A single eye per patient was included in the final analysis for a total of 324 cases. The SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Haigis, Holladay 2, and Barrett Universal II formulas were evaluated. The correlations between the refractive prediction errors calculated using the five formulas and ocular dimensions such as axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), corneal power, and lens thickness (LT) were analyzed. RESULTS:There were significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by the five formulas after the adjustment for mean refractive prediction errors to zero (P = 0.038). The Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest median absolute error (0.263) and resulted in a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D (all P < 0.050). The refractive errors predicted by only the Barrett formula showed no significant correlation with the ocular dimensions: AL, ACD, corneal power, and LT. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the Barrett Universal II formula, integrated to a swept-source optical biometer had the lowest prediction error and appeared to have the least bias for different ocular biometric measurements for the ZCB00 IOL.

| S-EPMC6959581 | biostudies-literature

Prediction accuracy of standard and total keratometry by swept-source optical biometer for multifocal intraocular lens power calculation.

Project description:We aimed to compare the refractive outcomes of cataract surgery with diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) using standard keratometry (K) and total keratometry (TK). In this retrospective observational case series study, a total of 302 patients who underwent cataract surgery with multifocal IOL implantation were included. Predicted refractive outcomes were calculated based on the current standard formulas and a new formula developed for TK using K and TK, which were obtained from a swept-source optical biometer. At 2-month postoperatively, median absolute prediction errors (MedAEs) and proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 diopters (D) of predicted postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refraction were analyzed. There was no significant difference between MedAEs or proportion of eyes within ± 0.50D of predicted refraction from K and TK in each formula. In TFNT00 and 839MP IOL cases, there was no difference between MedAEs from K and TK using any formula. In 829MP IOL cases, MedAE from TK was significantly larger than that from K in Barrett Universal II/Barrett TK Universal II (P = 0.033). In 677MY IOL cases, MedAE from TK was significantly larger than that from K in Haigis (P = 0.020) and Holladay 2 (P = 0.006) formulas. In the subgroup analysis for IOL, there was no difference between the proportion of eyes within ± 0.50 D of predicted refraction from K and TK using any formula. TFNT00 and 839MP IOLs were favorable with TK, with 677MY IOL with K and 829MP IOL being in a neutral position, which necessitates the study that investigates the accuracy of the new TK technology.

| S-EPMC7910298 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation formulas based on swept-source OCT biometer in cataract patients with phakic intraocular lens.

Project description:PurposeTo research the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formulas and investigate the effect of anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) measured by swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer (IOLMaster 700) in patients with posterior chamber phakic IOL (PC-pIOL).MethodsRetrospective case series. The IOLMaster 700 biometer was used to measure axial length (AL) and anterior segment parameters. The traditional formulas (SRK/T, Holladay 1 and Haigis) with or without Wang-Koch (WK) AL adjustment, and new-generation formulas (Barret Universal II [BUII], Emmetropia Verifying Optical [EVO] v2.0, Kane, Pearl-DGS) were utilized in IOL power calculation.ResultsThis study enrolled 24 eyes of 24 patients undergoing combined PC-pIOL removal and cataract surgery at Xiamen Eye Center of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China. The median absolute prediction error in ascending order was EVO 2.0 (0.33), Kane (0.35), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.42), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.44), Haigis-WKC1 (0.46), Pearl-DGS (0.47), BUII (0.58), Haigis (0.75), SRK/T (0.79), and Holladay 1 (1.32). The root-mean-square absolute error in ascending order was Haigis-WKC1 (0.591), Holladay 1-WKmodified (0.622), SRK/T-WKmodified (0.623), EVO (0.673), Kane (0.678), Pearl-DGS (0.753), BUII (0.863), Haigis (1.061), SRK/T (1.188), and Holladay 1 (1.513). A detailed analysis of ACD and LT measurement error revealed negligible impact on refractive outcomes in BUII and EVO 2.0 when these parameters were incorporated or omitted in the formula calculation.ConclusionThe Kane, EVO 2.0, and traditional formulas with WK AL adjustment displayed high prediction accuracy. Furthermore, the ACD and LT measurement error does not exert a significant influence on the accuracy of IOL power calculation formulas in highly myopic eyes implanted with PC-pIOL.

| S-EPMC11299284 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry.

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the axial lengths (ALs) using a new biometer with swept-source optical coherence tomography (Argos) versus ALs using a conventional biometer with partial coherence interferometry (IOL Master, version 5). The ALs in 48 eyes of 48 cataract patients were measured with Argos using refractive indexes that correspond to the particular tissue and with IOL Master using a single refractive index. The eyes were divided into three subgroups by AL length: short-AL group (n = 16), <23.27 mm; intermediate-AL group (n = 16), 23.27-24.03 mm; long-AL group (n = 16), ?24.04 mm. The ALs (mm) measured with the Argos and IOL Master biometers, respectively, were 22.77 ± 0.43 and 22.74 ± 0.44, 23.63 ± 0.21 and 23.62 ± 0.21, and 26.00 ± 1.61 and 26.05 ± 1.64 in the short-, intermediate-, and long-AL groups, respectively. The mean ALs with the Argos biometer were longer than those with the IOL Master biometer in the short-AL group (P = 0.002) There was no significant difference in the intermediate-AL groups (P = 0.14). In contrast, the mean ALs with the Argos biometer were shorter than those with the IOL Master biometer in the long-AL group (P < 0.001). Differences between the ALs measured with the two biometers were statistically significant in short- and long-AL subgroups. However, the differences might not be clinically significant.

| S-EPMC5918161 | biostudies-literature

Intraocular lens power calculation formulas accuracy in combined phacovitrectomy: an 8-formulas comparison study.

Project description:BackgroundOur study aimed to assess and compare the accuracy of 8 intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas (Barrett Universal II, EVO 2.0, Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Kane and PEARL-DGS) in patients submitted to combined phacovitrectomy for vitreomacular (VM) interface disorders.MethodsRetrospective chart review study including axial-length matched patients submitted to phacoemulsification alone (Group 1) and combined phacovitrectomy (Group 2). Using optimized constants in both groups, refraction prediction error of each formula was calculated for each eye. The optimised constants from Group 1 were also applied to patients of Group 2 - Group 3. Outcome measures included the mean prediction error (ME) and its standard deviation (SD), mean (MAE) and median (MedAE) absolute errors, in diopters (D), and the percentage of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D.ResultsA total of 220 eyes were included (Group 1: 100; Group 2: 120). In Group 1, the difference in formulas absolute error was significative (p = 0.005). The Kane Formula had the lowest MAE (0.306) and MedAE (0.264). In Group 2, Kane had the overall best performance, followed by PEARL-DGS, EVO 2.0 and Barrett Universal II. The ME of all formulas in both Groups 1 and 2 were 0.000 (p = 0.934; p = 0.971, respectively). In Group 3, a statistically significant myopic shift was observed for each formula (p < 0.001).ConclusionSurgeons must be careful regarding IOL power selection in phacovitrectomy considering the systematic myopic shift evidenced-constant optimization may help eliminating such error. Moreover, newly introduced formulas and calculation methods may help us achieving increasingly better refractive outcomes both in cataract surgery alone and phacovitrectomy.

| S-EPMC8371894 | biostudies-literature

Development of a new intraocular lens power calculation method based on lens position estimated with optical coherence tomography.

Project description:A new method is developed and validated for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation based on paraxial ray tracing of the postoperative IOL positions, which are obtained with the use of anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Of the 474 eyes studied, 137 and 337 were grouped into training and validation sets, respectively. The positions of the implanted IOLs of the training datasets were characterized with multiple linear regression analyses one month after the operations. A new regression formula was developed to predict the postoperative anterior chamber depth with the use of the stepwise analysis results. In the validation dataset, postoperative refractive values were calculated according to the paraxial ray tracing of the cornea and lens based on the assumption of finite structural thicknesses with separate surface curvatures. The predicted refraction error was calculated as the difference of the expected postoperative refraction from the spherical-equivalent objective refraction values. The percentage error (within ±0.50 diopters) of the new formula was 84.3%. This was not significantly correlated to the axial length or keratometry. The developed formula yielded excellent postoperative refraction predictions and could be applicable to eyes with abnormal proportions, such as steep or flat corneal curvatures and short and long axial lengths.

| S-EPMC7162886 | biostudies-literature

Sustained accuracy improvement in intraocular lens power calculation with the application of quality control circle.

Project description:Accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation is always a challenge in ophthalmology, and unoptimized process may lead to inaccurate refractive outcomes. Quality control circle (QCC) has shown its success in many fields as a process management tool. However, its efficacy in ophthalmology remains unclear. Here we utilized the QCC method to optimize the process and evaluate its efficacy in improving the accuracy of IOL power calculation. After the QCC application, the percentage of eyes with achieved refractive outcomes within 0.5 diopter significantly increased from 63.2% to 80.8% calculated by Haigis formula and 59.2% to 75.8% by SRK/T formula in patients with normal axial length (AL) (22 mm ≤ AL < 26 mm). Although there were no statistically significant differences in patients with long AL by the two formulas (p = 0.886 and 0.726), we achieved an accuracy of 75% with the application of the PhacoOptics software, which was significantly higher than that using the other two formulas (p < 0.001). Our findings indicated that QCC optimized and standardized the process of IOL power calculation, thus improved the accuracy of IOL power calculation in patients who underwent cataract surgery.

| S-EPMC5665969 | biostudies-literature

Intraocular Lens Power Calculation after Small Incision Lenticule Extraction.

Project description:With more than 1.5 million Small Incision Lenticule Extraction (SMILE) procedures having already been performed worldwide in an ageing population, intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in post-SMILE eyes will inevitably become a common challenge for ophthalmologists. Since no refractive outcomes of cataract surgery following SMILE have been published, there is a lack of empirical data for optimizing IOL power calculation. Using the ray tracing as the standard of reference - a purely physical method that obviates the need for any empirical optimization - we analyzed the agreement of various IOL power calculation formulas derived from the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ASCRS) post-keratorefractive surgery online calculator. In our study of 88 post-SMILE eyes, the Masket formula showed the smallest mean prediction error [-0.36 ± 0.32 diopters (D)] and median absolute error (0.33D) and yielded the largest percentage of eyes within ±0.50D (70%) in reference to ray tracing. Non-inferior refractive prediction errors and ±0.50D accuracies were achieved by the Barrett True K, Barrett True K No History and the Potvin-Hill formula. Use of these formulas in conjunction with ray tracing is recommended until sufficient data for empirical optimization of IOL power calculation after SMILE is available.

| S-EPMC7136233 | biostudies-literature

Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:This review article attempts to evaluate the accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation formulae in short eyes. A thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted for articles published over the past 21 years, up to July 2021. The mean absolute error was compared by using weighted mean difference, whereas odds ratio was used for comparing the percentage of eyes with prediction error within ±0.50 diopter (D) and ±1.0 D of target refraction. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was analyzed by using Chi-square test and I2 test. Fifteen studies including 2,395 eyes and 11 formulae (Barrett Universal II, Full Monte method, Haigis, Hill-RBF, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, Holladay 2, Olsen, Super formula, SRK/T, and T2) were included. Although the mean absolute error (MAE) of Barrett Universal II was found to be the lowest, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the comparisons. The median absolute error (MedAE) of Barrett Universal II was the lowest (0.260). Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF had the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction, respectively. Yet their comparison with the rest of the formulae did not yield statistically significant results. Thus, to conclude, in the present meta-analysis, although lowest MAE and MedAE were found for Barrett Universal II and the highest percentage of eyes within ±0.50 D and ±1.0 D of target refraction was found for Holladay 1 and Hill-RBF, respectively, none of the formulae was found to be statistically superior over the other in eyes with short axial length.

| S-EPMC9114558 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data