Abstract
Aim: To compare accuracy of intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Carl Zeiss IOL master 500 and Immersion ultrasound (Alcon Ocuscan RXP). Methods: A prospective randomized study of patients who underwent clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable (IOL) by a single surgeon, during the period September 2010 to 2012. Group A included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Immersion ultrasound (Ocuscan RXP) was used. Group B included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Zeiss IOL master was used. SRK T formula was used to calculate the IOL power in both the groups. Postoperative final refraction was done at 6 weeks. Unaided visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity was assessed. Postoperative refractive error was compared with predicted refractive error with each biometry method. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 16.5. Continuous variables expressed as mean (standard deviation). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 50 patients in Group A, 44 patients in Group B. Axial length of the patients varied from 22-26mm in both the groups. The postoperative refraction using Ocuscan, 88% had refractive error ≤± 0.5 D, 94% had ≤±1.00D, and 100% had ≤±2.0D of emmetropia. Using Zeiss IOL Master 72.7% had ≤± 0.5 D, 100% had ≤±1.00D of refractive error. Difference in absolute postoperative refractive error using Ocuscan vs. IOL Master was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study both ultrasound Ocuscan and IOL master were accurate in calculating intraocular lens power and achieving postoperative refraction closer to emmetropia.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 185-191 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Asian Journal of Ophthalmology |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Ophthalmology
Cite this
}
Comparison of accuracy of partial coherence interferometry based zeiss IOL master 500 and immersion ultrasound (Ocuscan RXP) for intraocular lens power calculation. / Vijaya Pai, H.; Shastri, Divya; Kamath, Asha.
In: Asian Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2016, p. 185-191.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of accuracy of partial coherence interferometry based zeiss IOL master 500 and immersion ultrasound (Ocuscan RXP) for intraocular lens power calculation
AU - Vijaya Pai, H.
AU - Shastri, Divya
AU - Kamath, Asha
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Aim: To compare accuracy of intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Carl Zeiss IOL master 500 and Immersion ultrasound (Alcon Ocuscan RXP). Methods: A prospective randomized study of patients who underwent clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable (IOL) by a single surgeon, during the period September 2010 to 2012. Group A included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Immersion ultrasound (Ocuscan RXP) was used. Group B included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Zeiss IOL master was used. SRK T formula was used to calculate the IOL power in both the groups. Postoperative final refraction was done at 6 weeks. Unaided visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity was assessed. Postoperative refractive error was compared with predicted refractive error with each biometry method. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 16.5. Continuous variables expressed as mean (standard deviation). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 50 patients in Group A, 44 patients in Group B. Axial length of the patients varied from 22-26mm in both the groups. The postoperative refraction using Ocuscan, 88% had refractive error ≤± 0.5 D, 94% had ≤±1.00D, and 100% had ≤±2.0D of emmetropia. Using Zeiss IOL Master 72.7% had ≤± 0.5 D, 100% had ≤±1.00D of refractive error. Difference in absolute postoperative refractive error using Ocuscan vs. IOL Master was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study both ultrasound Ocuscan and IOL master were accurate in calculating intraocular lens power and achieving postoperative refraction closer to emmetropia.
AB - Aim: To compare accuracy of intraocular lens power (IOL) calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Carl Zeiss IOL master 500 and Immersion ultrasound (Alcon Ocuscan RXP). Methods: A prospective randomized study of patients who underwent clear corneal phacoemulsification with foldable (IOL) by a single surgeon, during the period September 2010 to 2012. Group A included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Immersion ultrasound (Ocuscan RXP) was used. Group B included those patients in whom IOL power calculation using Partial coherence Interferometry based Zeiss IOL master was used. SRK T formula was used to calculate the IOL power in both the groups. Postoperative final refraction was done at 6 weeks. Unaided visual acuity and best corrected visual acuity was assessed. Postoperative refractive error was compared with predicted refractive error with each biometry method. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 16.5. Continuous variables expressed as mean (standard deviation). P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 50 patients in Group A, 44 patients in Group B. Axial length of the patients varied from 22-26mm in both the groups. The postoperative refraction using Ocuscan, 88% had refractive error ≤± 0.5 D, 94% had ≤±1.00D, and 100% had ≤±2.0D of emmetropia. Using Zeiss IOL Master 72.7% had ≤± 0.5 D, 100% had ≤±1.00D of refractive error. Difference in absolute postoperative refractive error using Ocuscan vs. IOL Master was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In our study both ultrasound Ocuscan and IOL master were accurate in calculating intraocular lens power and achieving postoperative refraction closer to emmetropia.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959367492&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959367492&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 14
SP - 185
EP - 191
JO - Asian Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - Asian Journal of Ophthalmology
SN - 1560-2133
IS - 4
ER -