A comparative study on calculation of intraocular lens power using different formulas between IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in cataract eyes
10.3760/cma.j.cn115989-20200226-00110
- VernacularTitle:IOLMaster 700与IOLMaster 500不同计算公式对白内障眼人工晶状体屈光力计算的准确性比较
- Author:
Xiaohui DENG
1
;
Pingjun CHANG
;
Jinhai HUANG
;
Dandan WANG
;
Yinying ZHAO
;
Xixia DING
;
Yun'e ZHAO
Author Information
1. 温州医科大学附属眼视光医院杭州院区，杭州 310020
- Keywords:
Cataract;
Lenses, intraocular;
Optical biometry;
Refractive power;
IOLMaster;
IOL calculation formula
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental Ophthalmology
2022;40(12):1170-1175
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted.Two hundred and sixty-two eyes of 262 patients who underwent phacoemulsification combined with IOL implantation at the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from November 2018 to November 2019 were enrolled.Preoperative biometry for cataract surgery was performed using IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500.IOL power was calculated through the built-in formulas, Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ, Hoffer Q and SRK/T of the two devices.The difference in IOL power calculation between the two devices was analyzed through the prediction error of IOL power calculation using different formulas across different axial length (AL) ranges.This study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (No.2020-038-K-33). Written informed consent was obtained from each patient before the surgery.Results:There was no significant difference in mean absolute error (MAE) between IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T over the entire AL range (all at P >0.05). The MAE of IOLMaster 500 was 0.47 (0.24, 0.90) D, which was significantly lower than 0.50 (0.28, 0.99) D of IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ formula ( Z=-3.120, P=0.002). When AL was <22.0 mm and ≥24.5 mm-<26.0 mm, there was no significant difference in MAE between the two devices using the four formulas (all at P >0.05). When AL was ≥22.0 mm-24.5 mm, there was no significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T (all at P >0.05), but 0.42 (0.18, 0.75) D from IOLMaster 500 was smaller than 0.45 (0.25, 0.79) D from IOLMaster 700 using Holladay Ⅰ, showing a statistically significant difference ( Z=-3.487, P <0.001). But the difference was negligible and therefore was of no clinical significance.When AL was ≥26.0 mm, there was no statistically significant difference in the MAE between the two devices using Haigis, Holladay Ⅰ and SRK/T, but 0.66 (0.38, 1.00) D from IOLMaster 500 was significantly smaller than 0.98 (0.62, 1.32) D from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q ( Z=-3.046, P=0.002). Conclusions:The refractive prediction accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 using Haigis, Hoffer Q and SRK/T is similar over the entire AL range.For patient with long AL, the IOL calculation from IOLMaster 700 using Hoffer Q is significantly larger than that from IOLMaster 500, which requires extra caution in clinical practice.The accuracy of IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 for IOL prediction is very similar.
