Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measured Using Four Applanation Ultrasonographic Biometry Devices.
10.3341/jkos.2014.55.11.1631
- Author:
Byung Su LIM
1
;
Sang Kyu LEE
;
Eun Chul KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Bucheon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea. eunchol@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Applanation ultrasonographic biometry;
A-scan;
Axial length;
Refractive error
- MeSH:
Biometry*;
Cataract;
Humans;
Lenses, Intraocular;
Refractive Errors
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2014;55(11):1631-1635
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare ocular biometry measured using 4 applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices and evaluate the accuracies of the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery. METHODS: A total of 60 eyes in 60 patients who received cataract surgery were included in the present study. The axial length was measured using applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices (Aviso(R), Hi-Scan(R), UD-6000(R), P37-II(R)). Additionally, keratometry was measured using an autokeratometer (Topcon KR 8000) and the SRK/T formula was used to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power. Two months after cataract surgery, the refractive outcome was determined, and results from the 4 different applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices were compared. RESULTS: Axial lengths were 23.52 +/- 1.45 mm, 23.51 +/- 1.04 mm, 23.54 +/- 1.58 mm, and 23.52 +/- 1.38 mm measured using Aviso(R), Hi-Scan(R), UD-6000(R), and P37-II(R), respectively with no statistically significant differences observed (p = 0.92). The mean absolute error (MAE) of the Aviso(R), Hi-Scan(R), UD-6000(R), and P37-II(R) was 0.41 +/- 0.32 diopter (D), 0.40 +/- 0.30 D, 0.36 +/- 0.26 D, and 0.39 +/- 0.26 D, respectively. The mean numerical error (MNE) was 0.39 +/- 0.37 D, 0.36 +/- 0.32 D, 0.26 +/- 0.29 D, and 0.38 +/- 0.32 D, respectively. The differences between the 4 different applanation ultrasonographic biometry devices were not statistically significant (p = 0.90, p = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: The ocular biometric measurements and prediction of postoperative refraction using Aviso(R), Hi-Scan(R), UD-6000(R), P37-II(R) showed no significant differences.
