Intraocular Lens Master Research Articles

Comparison of Predictions Made by the Intraocular Lens Master and Ultrasound Biometry

To ascertain whether a new instrument that uses partial coherence interferometry technology (Intraocular Lens Master [IOLm]) or ultrasound biometry provides a more accurate prediction of refractive outcomes in cataract surgery. This was a retrospective medical record review of 421 eyes of 304 patients who underwent cataract surgery with the IOLm and ultrasound biometry from January 3, 2002, to December 2, 2005. The mean difference between the prediction with each technology and the final spherical equivalent was compared. Circumstances in which both technologies failed to make accurate predictions were investigated. The mean (SD) of the difference between predicted refraction and final spherical equivalent was -0.43 (0.84) diopters (D) for the IOLm and -0.60 (0.87) D for ultrasound biometry, indicating that on average the IOLm was a closer predictor than ultrasound biometry of the final spherical equivalent (P < .001). The IOLm had a 5% higher likelihood of predicting a spherical equivalent within 0.25 D than ultrasound biometry (P = .06), an 8% higher likelihood of predicting a spherical equivalent within 0.50 D (P < .001), and an 8% higher likelihood of predicting a spherical equivalent within 1.00 D (P < .001). To our knowledge, this is the most eyes examined for cataract surgery in a prospective fashion with both the IOLm and ultrasound biometry. The IOLm is a better predictor of postoperative refraction than ultrasound biometry, particularly within close ranges.

Accuracy of Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation With Partial Coherence Interferometry in High Myopia

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy of biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using partial coherence interferometry (IOL Master®) in highly myopic patients with axial lengths of 26 mm or greater. Methods: Patients with axial lengths equal to or greater than 26 mm who had undergone cataract surgery were enrolled. IOL power was calculated using IOL Master and/or applanation ultrasonography with the SRK/T formula. Twenty-seven eyes using both IOL Master and applanation ultrasonography were included in a paired group, and forty-eight eyes using the IOL Master only and twenty-five eyes using applanation ultrasonography only were included in unpaired groups. The differences between the predicted refraction and the actual refraction were compared and analyzed. Results: In the paired study, the axial lengths in patients using IOL Master (29.14±2.32 mm) were significantly longer than those of patients using applanation ultrasonography (28.57±2.23 mm) (p0.05). In the unpaired study, the MAEs of the IOL Master and applanation ultrasonography groups were 0.61±0.61D and 0.65±0.63D, respectively. Conclusions: In eyes with axial lengths of 26.0 mm or greater, the accuracy of IOL power calculation with IOL Master using the SRK/T formula was comparable to that with applanation ultrasonography.