Comparative Analysis of Refractive Outcomes Using Optical and Ultrasound Biometry in Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery Refractive Outcomes in Optical vs. Ultrasound Biometry
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Accurate biometry is critical for optimal visual outcomes in cataract surgery. Both optical and ultrasound biometry are widely used, but their comparative effectiveness remains under evaluation.
Objective: To compare the refractive outcomes of optical and ultrasound biometry in patients undergoing elective phacoemulsification cataract surgery.
Methods: This prospective cohort study included 352 patients aged 30-60 years undergoing elective phacoemulsification with in-the-bag IOL implantation. Patients were randomly assigned to either optical biometry using the Zeiss IOL Master 700 or ultrasound biometry with Axis Nano contact A-mode echography. Visual acuity and spherical equivalent were measured at baseline and 4 weeks post-operatively. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, with independent t-tests comparing outcomes between groups.
Results: The mean post-operative visual acuity was 0.83 ± 0.22, with a mean spherical equivalent of -0.88 ± 0.16. No significant difference was found between the ultrasound (-0.89 ± 0.17) and optical biometry (-0.87 ± 0.16) groups (p=0.152, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01).
Conclusion: Both optical and ultrasound biometry provide comparable refractive outcomes in cataract surgery, with no significant difference in post-operative spherical equivalent.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Owsley C, McGwin G, Sloane M, Wells J, Stalvey BT, Gauthreaux S. Impact of Cataract Surgery on Motor Vehicle Crash Involvement by Older Adults. JAMA. 2002;288(7):841-849.
Linebarger EJ, Hardten DR, Shah GK, Lindstrom RL. Phacoemulsification and Modern Cataract Surgery. Surv Ophthalmol. 1999;44(2):123-147.
Roper-Hall MJ. Microsurgery in Ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 1967;51(6):408-414.
Kelman CD. The History and Development of Phacoemulsification. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 1994;34(2):1-12.
Kim M, Eom Y, Song JS, Kim HM. Comparative Evaluation of Refractive Outcomes After Implantation of Two Types of Intraocular Lenses With Different Diopter Intervals (0.25 Diopter Versus 0.50 Diopter). BMC Ophthalmol. 2018;18:176.
Lam D, Rao SK, Ratra V, Liu Y, Mitchell P, King J, et al. Cataract. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15014.
Liu YC, Wilkins M, Kim T, Malyugin B, Mehta JS. Cataracts. Lancet. 2017;390(10094):600-612.
Ghiasian L, Abolfathzadeh N, Manafi N, Hadavandkhani A. Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Keratoconus: A Review of Literature. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2019;31(2):127-134.
Ton Y, Barrett GD, Kleinmann G, Levy A, Assia EI. Toric Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Patients With Keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(11):1389-1397.
Karabela Y, Eliacik M, Kocabora MS, Erdur SK, Baybora H. Predicting the Refractive Outcome and Accuracy of IOL Power Calculation After Phacoemulsification Using the SRK/T Formula With Ultrasound Biometry in Medium Axial Lengths. Clin Ophthalmol. 2017;11:1143-1149.
Lam S, Gupta BK, Hahn JM, Manastersky NA. Refractive Outcomes After Cataract Surgery: Scheimpflug Keratometry Versus Standard Automated Keratometry in Virgin Corneas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(11):1984-1987.
Krysik K, Lyssek-Boron A, Janiszewska-Bil D, Wylegala E, Dobrowolski D. Impact of Ultrasound and Optical Biometry on Refractive Outcomes of Cataract Surgery After Penetrating Keratoplasty in Keratoconus. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019;12(6):949-953.
Murphy C, Tuft SJ, Minassian DC. Refractive Error and Visual Outcome After Cataract Extraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(1):62-66.
Percival SPB, Vyas AV, Setty SS, Manvikar S. The Influence of Implant Design on Accuracy of Postoperative Refraction. Eye (Lond). 2002;16(3):309-315.
Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Sacu S, Kiss B, Polak K, Nepp J, et al. Influence of Operator Experience on the Performance of Ultrasound Biometry Compared to Optical Biometry Before Cataract Surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(10):1950-1955.
Dong J, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Jia Z, Zhang S, Wang X. Comparison of Axial Length, Anterior Chamber Depth, and Intraocular Lens Power Between IOLMaster and Ultrasound in Normal, Long, and Short Eyes. PLoS One. 2018;13(3).
Wang JK, Hu CY, Chang SW. Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using the IOLMaster and Various Formulas in Eyes With Long Axial Length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(2):262-267.
Olsen T. Improved Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation With the Zeiss IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(1):84-87.
Chia A, Lin XY, Dirani M, Gazzard G, Ramamurthy D, Quah BL, et al. Comparison of Optical Biometry Versus Ultrasound Biometry in Cases With Borderline Signal-To-Noise Ratio. PubMed. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30237695/.
Effective Ocular Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation. touchOPHTHALMOLOGY. Available from: https://www.touchophthalmology.com/anterior-segment/journal-articles/effective-ocular-biometry-and-intraocular-lens-power-calculation/.
Comparison of Immersion Ultrasound and Low Coherence Reflectometry for Ocular Biometry in Cataract Patients. PMC. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6010380/.
Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation – Atypical Cases. PMC. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739021/.