Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation

Background The aim of the study was to determine whether the innovative non-contact optical low-coherence reflectometry method utilized by the Lenstar LS 900® agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in routine biometric measurement and intraocular lens power calculation to r...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology 2011, Vol.249 (1), p.69-75
Hauptverfasser: Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana, Bušić, Mladen, Čima, Ivan, Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana, Bosnar, Damir, Miletić, Daliborka
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 75
container_issue 1
container_start_page 69
container_title Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology
container_volume 249
creator Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana
Bušić, Mladen
Čima, Ivan
Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana
Bosnar, Damir
Miletić, Daliborka
description Background The aim of the study was to determine whether the innovative non-contact optical low-coherence reflectometry method utilized by the Lenstar LS 900® agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in routine biometric measurement and intraocular lens power calculation to replace it. Methods Twenty-two patients hospitalized at our eye clinic undergoing cataract surgery were assigned to have five consecutive measurements of axial length by two examiners in a single session using applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar. The applanation ultrasound intraocular lens power calculation was based on automated keratometry and applanation ultrasound axial length measurements. The Lenstar intraocular lens power calculation was based on its measurement of keratometry and axial length. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess interobserver repeatability of applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar as well as agreement between the Lenstar and applanation ultrasound for axial length measurement and intraocular lens power calculation. Results Thirty-two eyes of 22 patients were analyzed. In 95% of the observations, predicted refractive error corresponded to –0.26 ± 0.62 D and 0.01 ± 0.20 D obtained with applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar, respectively. Conclusions Based on excellent repeatability of the Lenstar and acceptable repeatability of applanation ultrasound, two techniques may be used interchangeably. The predicted refractive error of ±0.20 D in 95% of the observations has never been achieved. Optical low-coherence reflectometry might become a new standard method for biometric measurement needed for intraocular lens-power calculation in patients with cataract.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_918042846</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2247479231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-91d01d8b41ae68b4abf0d1aca7d0324f0e0258931c9581ab955eb832c7f86783</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUFr3DAQhUVJabab_IBcgsilJ7UzkryWj2VJ00KglxxyM7IsNw6y5Uo2IfTPd8xuEyiUnoZ5-uYNo8fYBcJHBCg_ZQCNpQAEgQVUQr9hG9SqECXI-xO2gVKiMEren7L3OT8C4arAd-xUgikUdRv2ax-HyaY-x5HHjsdp7p0NPMQn4eKDT350niffBe_mOPg5PXM7ttxOU7CjnXsaW8KcbI4LyU1_ZEjuR5KjW4JNPPgx8yk--cTJfdXWyTP2trMh-_Nj3bK7L9d3-6_i9vvNt_3nW-E0yFlU2AK2ptFo_Y6KbTpo0TpbtqCk7sCDLEyl0FWFQdtUReEbutqVndmVRm3Zh4PtlOLPxee5HvrsfKADfFxyXaEBLY3e_Zc0utQKd1ITefUX-RiXNNIVK4QolQKC8AC5FHOmT6yn1A82PdcI9RpgfQiwhrWnAOvV-PJovDSDb18m_iRGgDwAmZ7GHz69bv6362_JD6gJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>847112330</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana ; Bušić, Mladen ; Čima, Ivan ; Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana ; Bosnar, Damir ; Miletić, Daliborka</creator><creatorcontrib>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana ; Bušić, Mladen ; Čima, Ivan ; Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana ; Bosnar, Damir ; Miletić, Daliborka</creatorcontrib><description>Background The aim of the study was to determine whether the innovative non-contact optical low-coherence reflectometry method utilized by the Lenstar LS 900® agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in routine biometric measurement and intraocular lens power calculation to replace it. Methods Twenty-two patients hospitalized at our eye clinic undergoing cataract surgery were assigned to have five consecutive measurements of axial length by two examiners in a single session using applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar. The applanation ultrasound intraocular lens power calculation was based on automated keratometry and applanation ultrasound axial length measurements. The Lenstar intraocular lens power calculation was based on its measurement of keratometry and axial length. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess interobserver repeatability of applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar as well as agreement between the Lenstar and applanation ultrasound for axial length measurement and intraocular lens power calculation. Results Thirty-two eyes of 22 patients were analyzed. In 95% of the observations, predicted refractive error corresponded to –0.26 ± 0.62 D and 0.01 ± 0.20 D obtained with applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar, respectively. Conclusions Based on excellent repeatability of the Lenstar and acceptable repeatability of applanation ultrasound, two techniques may be used interchangeably. The predicted refractive error of ±0.20 D in 95% of the observations has never been achieved. Optical low-coherence reflectometry might become a new standard method for biometric measurement needed for intraocular lens-power calculation in patients with cataract.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0721-832X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-702X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20853004</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Axial Length, Eye ; Biometry - instrumentation ; Biometry - methods ; Cataract ; Cataract Extraction ; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological ; Female ; Humans ; Interferometry ; Lens Implantation, Intraocular ; Lenses, Intraocular ; Light ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Ophthalmology ; Optics and Photonics ; Prospective Studies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Ultrasonography ; Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><ispartof>Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology, 2011, Vol.249 (1), p.69-75</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag 2010</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-91d01d8b41ae68b4abf0d1aca7d0324f0e0258931c9581ab955eb832c7f86783</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-91d01d8b41ae68b4abf0d1aca7d0324f0e0258931c9581ab955eb832c7f86783</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20853004$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bušić, Mladen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Čima, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosnar, Damir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miletić, Daliborka</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation</title><title>Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology</title><addtitle>Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol</addtitle><addtitle>Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol</addtitle><description>Background The aim of the study was to determine whether the innovative non-contact optical low-coherence reflectometry method utilized by the Lenstar LS 900® agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in routine biometric measurement and intraocular lens power calculation to replace it. Methods Twenty-two patients hospitalized at our eye clinic undergoing cataract surgery were assigned to have five consecutive measurements of axial length by two examiners in a single session using applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar. The applanation ultrasound intraocular lens power calculation was based on automated keratometry and applanation ultrasound axial length measurements. The Lenstar intraocular lens power calculation was based on its measurement of keratometry and axial length. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess interobserver repeatability of applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar as well as agreement between the Lenstar and applanation ultrasound for axial length measurement and intraocular lens power calculation. Results Thirty-two eyes of 22 patients were analyzed. In 95% of the observations, predicted refractive error corresponded to –0.26 ± 0.62 D and 0.01 ± 0.20 D obtained with applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar, respectively. Conclusions Based on excellent repeatability of the Lenstar and acceptable repeatability of applanation ultrasound, two techniques may be used interchangeably. The predicted refractive error of ±0.20 D in 95% of the observations has never been achieved. Optical low-coherence reflectometry might become a new standard method for biometric measurement needed for intraocular lens-power calculation in patients with cataract.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Axial Length, Eye</subject><subject>Biometry - instrumentation</subject><subject>Biometry - methods</subject><subject>Cataract</subject><subject>Cataract Extraction</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interferometry</subject><subject>Lens Implantation, Intraocular</subject><subject>Lenses, Intraocular</subject><subject>Light</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Optics and Photonics</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><issn>0721-832X</issn><issn>1435-702X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUFr3DAQhUVJabab_IBcgsilJ7UzkryWj2VJ00KglxxyM7IsNw6y5Uo2IfTPd8xuEyiUnoZ5-uYNo8fYBcJHBCg_ZQCNpQAEgQVUQr9hG9SqECXI-xO2gVKiMEren7L3OT8C4arAd-xUgikUdRv2ax-HyaY-x5HHjsdp7p0NPMQn4eKDT350niffBe_mOPg5PXM7ttxOU7CjnXsaW8KcbI4LyU1_ZEjuR5KjW4JNPPgx8yk--cTJfdXWyTP2trMh-_Nj3bK7L9d3-6_i9vvNt_3nW-E0yFlU2AK2ptFo_Y6KbTpo0TpbtqCk7sCDLEyl0FWFQdtUReEbutqVndmVRm3Zh4PtlOLPxee5HvrsfKADfFxyXaEBLY3e_Zc0utQKd1ITefUX-RiXNNIVK4QolQKC8AC5FHOmT6yn1A82PdcI9RpgfQiwhrWnAOvV-PJovDSDb18m_iRGgDwAmZ7GHz69bv6362_JD6gJ</recordid><startdate>2011</startdate><enddate>2011</enddate><creator>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana</creator><creator>Bušić, Mladen</creator><creator>Čima, Ivan</creator><creator>Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana</creator><creator>Bosnar, Damir</creator><creator>Miletić, Daliborka</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2011</creationdate><title>Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation</title><author>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana ; Bušić, Mladen ; Čima, Ivan ; Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana ; Bosnar, Damir ; Miletić, Daliborka</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c402t-91d01d8b41ae68b4abf0d1aca7d0324f0e0258931c9581ab955eb832c7f86783</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Axial Length, Eye</topic><topic>Biometry - instrumentation</topic><topic>Biometry - methods</topic><topic>Cataract</topic><topic>Cataract Extraction</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interferometry</topic><topic>Lens Implantation, Intraocular</topic><topic>Lenses, Intraocular</topic><topic>Light</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Optics and Photonics</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Visual Acuity - physiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bušić, Mladen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Čima, Ivan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosnar, Damir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miletić, Daliborka</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bjeloš Rončević, Mirjana</au><au>Bušić, Mladen</au><au>Čima, Ivan</au><au>Kuzmanović Elabjer, Biljana</au><au>Bosnar, Damir</au><au>Miletić, Daliborka</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation</atitle><jtitle>Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology</jtitle><stitle>Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol</stitle><addtitle>Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol</addtitle><date>2011</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>249</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>69</spage><epage>75</epage><pages>69-75</pages><issn>0721-832X</issn><eissn>1435-702X</eissn><abstract>Background The aim of the study was to determine whether the innovative non-contact optical low-coherence reflectometry method utilized by the Lenstar LS 900® agrees sufficiently with applanation ultrasound A-scan technique in routine biometric measurement and intraocular lens power calculation to replace it. Methods Twenty-two patients hospitalized at our eye clinic undergoing cataract surgery were assigned to have five consecutive measurements of axial length by two examiners in a single session using applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar. The applanation ultrasound intraocular lens power calculation was based on automated keratometry and applanation ultrasound axial length measurements. The Lenstar intraocular lens power calculation was based on its measurement of keratometry and axial length. Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess interobserver repeatability of applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar as well as agreement between the Lenstar and applanation ultrasound for axial length measurement and intraocular lens power calculation. Results Thirty-two eyes of 22 patients were analyzed. In 95% of the observations, predicted refractive error corresponded to –0.26 ± 0.62 D and 0.01 ± 0.20 D obtained with applanation ultrasound and the Lenstar, respectively. Conclusions Based on excellent repeatability of the Lenstar and acceptable repeatability of applanation ultrasound, two techniques may be used interchangeably. The predicted refractive error of ±0.20 D in 95% of the observations has never been achieved. Optical low-coherence reflectometry might become a new standard method for biometric measurement needed for intraocular lens-power calculation in patients with cataract.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>20853004</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0721-832X
ispartof Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology, 2011, Vol.249 (1), p.69-75
issn 0721-832X
1435-702X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_918042846
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Axial Length, Eye
Biometry - instrumentation
Biometry - methods
Cataract
Cataract Extraction
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological
Female
Humans
Interferometry
Lens Implantation, Intraocular
Lenses, Intraocular
Light
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Ophthalmology
Optics and Photonics
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Ultrasonography
Visual Acuity - physiology
title Comparison of optical low-coherence reflectometry and applanation ultrasound biometry on intraocular lens power calculation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T13%3A03%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20optical%20low-coherence%20reflectometry%20and%20applanation%20ultrasound%20biometry%20on%20intraocular%20lens%20power%20calculation&rft.jtitle=Graefe's%20archive%20for%20clinical%20and%20experimental%20ophthalmology&rft.au=Bjelo%C5%A1%20Ron%C4%8Devi%C4%87,%20Mirjana&rft.date=2011&rft.volume=249&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=69&rft.epage=75&rft.pages=69-75&rft.issn=0721-832X&rft.eissn=1435-702X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00417-010-1509-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2247479231%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=847112330&rft_id=info:pmid/20853004&rfr_iscdi=true