• Users Online: 1096
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 68-73

Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with average axial lengths: optical versus ultrasonic biometry

1 Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shebeen El-Kom, Egypt
2 Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Giza Memorial Institute, Cairo, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Waleed M Nagy
Al Nubaria 22773
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/DJO.DJO_7_19

Rights and Permissions

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the partial coherence interferometry to ultrasound (US)-based biometry in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation in eyes with average axial length (AL). Patients and methods One hundred eyes with AL of 21–24 mm having cataract as the only ocular pathology were included in the study from November 2016 to October 2018. Fifty eyes were subjected to US biometry and 50 eyes were subjected to Zeiss IOL-Master optical biometry followed by IOL power calculation. All patients underwent phacoemulsification by experienced surgeons with intra-bagal implantation of one-piece soft hydrophilic intraocular lens. AL, keratometric reading, anterior chamber depth, and intraocular lens power were compared. Actual postoperative spherical equivalent (SE), mean absolute error, and predicted error were calculated. Results No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups regarding the AL, keratometric reading, anterior chamber depth, IOLs power, predicted postoperative SE, and actual postoperative SE (P=0.36, 0.20, 0.57, 0.39, 0.31, and 0.09, respectively). The US group had significantly higher predicted error and mean absolute error than IOL-Master group (P=0.03 and 0.01, respectively). Conclusion IOL-Master optical biometry is slightly more accurate than US biometry for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes with average AL, whereas A-scan biometry is still a cost-effective method.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal