Background: The aim of this work was to investigate the accuracy of prediction of three different biometric methods for the calculation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Methods: In 59 consecutive patients who ...Background: The aim of this work was to investigate the accuracy of prediction of three different biometric methods for the calculation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Methods: In 59 consecutive patients who underwent extracapsular cataract- extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, we compared the refractive results at the first day (D1) and 6 weeks (W6) after surgery with the calculated refraction of three biometric methods: the Carl Zeiss “ IOL- Master 99” (IOLM), the Biovision “ Echograph Class 1- Type B” (BIOV) and the Allergan Humphrey “ Ultrasonic Biometer Mod. 820” (AHUB). For statistical calculation box- plots, the Wilcoxon signed- rank test and linear regression analysis were used. Results: In all patients the mean of the postoperative refraction was - 0.07 D (SD: 1.41) at day 1 and 0.12 D (SD: 1.18) at week 6. Compared to the postoperative refraction at week 6, the calculated refractive values were higher in all three measuring devices: IOLM: + 0.28 D (SD: 0.67), BIOV: + 0.60 D (SD: 0.88), AHUB:+ 0.26 D (SD: 0.92). There were no statistically significant differences between IOLM and BIOV, or respectively, AHUB and BIOV (P < 0.000 1), but a significant difference was found between IOLM and AHUB, (P=0.906). To adjust for systematic differences of the agreement, one can calculate the postoperative refraction at week 6 (REF6) from IOLM by using the linear regression formula: REF6=1.1 × .IOLM+ 0.3. Conclusion: A comparison between the three biometric methods and the refractive results at day 1 and week 6 after cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens showed that the calculated mean values obtained from the three biometric methods are higher than the real postoperative refraction. Calculations using the Zeiss IOL- Master and the Allergan Humphrey Ultrasonic Biometer are closer to the patient’ s postoperative refraction than calculations using the Biovision Echograph.展开更多
文摘Background: The aim of this work was to investigate the accuracy of prediction of three different biometric methods for the calculation of posterior chamber intraocular lenses. Methods: In 59 consecutive patients who underwent extracapsular cataract- extraction with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation, we compared the refractive results at the first day (D1) and 6 weeks (W6) after surgery with the calculated refraction of three biometric methods: the Carl Zeiss “ IOL- Master 99” (IOLM), the Biovision “ Echograph Class 1- Type B” (BIOV) and the Allergan Humphrey “ Ultrasonic Biometer Mod. 820” (AHUB). For statistical calculation box- plots, the Wilcoxon signed- rank test and linear regression analysis were used. Results: In all patients the mean of the postoperative refraction was - 0.07 D (SD: 1.41) at day 1 and 0.12 D (SD: 1.18) at week 6. Compared to the postoperative refraction at week 6, the calculated refractive values were higher in all three measuring devices: IOLM: + 0.28 D (SD: 0.67), BIOV: + 0.60 D (SD: 0.88), AHUB:+ 0.26 D (SD: 0.92). There were no statistically significant differences between IOLM and BIOV, or respectively, AHUB and BIOV (P < 0.000 1), but a significant difference was found between IOLM and AHUB, (P=0.906). To adjust for systematic differences of the agreement, one can calculate the postoperative refraction at week 6 (REF6) from IOLM by using the linear regression formula: REF6=1.1 × .IOLM+ 0.3. Conclusion: A comparison between the three biometric methods and the refractive results at day 1 and week 6 after cataract surgery with implantation of a posterior chamber intraocular lens showed that the calculated mean values obtained from the three biometric methods are higher than the real postoperative refraction. Calculations using the Zeiss IOL- Master and the Allergan Humphrey Ultrasonic Biometer are closer to the patient’ s postoperative refraction than calculations using the Biovision Echograph.
