Contact versus immersion biometry of axial length before cataract surgery

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 2195-2198

  Hennessy, Michael P ^a   Chan, Derek G ^a  

^a PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIOMETRY; CALCULATION; CATARACT EXTRACTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; EYE AXIS LENGTH; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFRACTION ERROR; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 0348010436     PISSN: 08863350     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00224-4     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Holladay JT, Prager TC, Ruiz RS, et al. Improving the predictability of intraocular lens power calculations. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104:539-541
2. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 1992; 18:125-129
3. McEwan JR, Massengill RK, Friedel SD. Effect of keratometer and axial length measurement errors on primary implant power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg 1990; 16:61-70
4. Richards SC, Olson RJ, Richards WL. Factors associated with poor predicrability by intraocular lens calculation formulas. Arch Ophthalmol 1985; 103:515-518
5. Schelenz J, Kammann J. Comparison of contact and immersion techniques for axial length measurement and implant power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 1989; 15:425-428
6. Olsen T. The accuracy of ultrasonic determination of axial length in pseudophakic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 1989; 67:141-144
7. Olsen T, Nielsen PJ. Immersion versus contact technique in the measurement of axial length by ultrasound. Acta Ophthalmol 1989; 67:101-102
8. Hitzenberger CK, Drexler W, Dolezal C, et al. Measurement of the axial length of cataract eyes by laser Doppler interferometry. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 1886-1893
9. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27:861-867
10. Giers U, Epple C. Comparison of A-scan device accuracy. J Cataract Refract Surg 1990; 16:235-242
11. Binkhorst RD. The accuracy of ultrasonic measurement of the axial length of the eye. Ophthalmic Surg 1981; 12:363-365
12. Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, et al. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry; outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28: 239-242
13. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence interferometry; clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype I. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:224-229
14. Watson A, Armstrong R. Contact or immersion technique for axial length measurement? Aust NZ J Ophthalmol 1999; 27:49-51
15. Rudnicka AR, Steele CF, Crabb DP, Edgar DF. Repeatability, reproducibility and intersession variability of the Allergan Humphrey ultrasonic biometer. Acta Ophthalmol 1992; 70:327-334
16. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-310
17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 1995; 346:1085-1087
18. Haigis W. Optical coherence biometry. In: Kohnen T, ed, Modern Cataract Surgery. Basel, Karger AG, 2002; 119-130 (Dev Ophthalmol v 34)
19. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126:524-534
20. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound biometry; clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype II. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28:230-234