IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mi Yeon Song
  • Sung Rae Noh
  • Kook Young Kim

Abstract

Purpose: To 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). Methods: We 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. Results: The 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. Conclusions: SS-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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mi Yeon Song & Sung Rae Noh & Kook Young Kim, 2021. "Refractive prediction of four different intraocular lens calculation formulas compared between new swept source optical coherence tomography and partial coherence interferometry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-13, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chan Min Yang & Dong Hui Lim & Hyo Jeong Kim & Tae-Young Chung, 2019. "Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kazuyoshi Magome & Naoyuki Morishige & Akifumi Ueno & Taka-Aki Matsui & Eiichi Uchio, 2021. "Prediction of cycloplegic refraction for noninvasive screening of children for refractive error," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.