Comparing ultrasound biometry with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculations: A randomized study

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 2547-2552

  Raymond, Simon ^a,b   Favilla, Ian ^a,b   Santamaria, Linda ^a,b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b Ophthalmology Unit   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; APPLANATION ULTRASOUND; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BIOMETRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; EYE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERFEROMETRY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KERATOMETRY; LENS IMPLANT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OPHTHALMOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARTIAL COHERENCE INTERFEROMETRY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REFRACTION ERROR; VISUAL ACUITY; ACOUSTIC MICROSCOPY; ANTERIOR EYE SEGMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EYE; EYE REFRACTION; LENS IMPLANTATION; LIGHT; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHACOEMULSIFICATION; PHYSIOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSEUDOPHAKIA;

AGED; ANTERIOR EYE SEGMENT; BIOMETRY; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EYE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERFEROMETRY; LENS IMPLANTATION, INTRAOCULAR; LENSES, INTRAOCULAR; LIGHT; MALE; MICROSCOPY, ACOUSTIC; PHACOEMULSIFICATION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSEUDOPHAKIA; REFRACTION, OCULAR; REFRACTIVE ERRORS;

EID: 66849114919     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: 15525783     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.08-3087     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Medical Sciences Advisory Committee. Optical Biometry Using Partial Coherence Interferometry Prior to Cataract Surgery.Canberra: Department of Health and Aging; 2005.
2. Watson A, Armstrong R. Contact or immersion techniques for axial length measurement? Aust NZ J Ophthalmol. 1999;27:49-51.
3. Leaming DV. Practice styles and preferences of ASCRS members: 2003 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:892-900.
4. Connors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:235-238.
5. 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.
6. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, Heinzl H, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001; 27:861-867.
7. 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.
8. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferome-try vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye. 2002;16:552-556.
9. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF. High precision biometry of pseudophakic eyes using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:1087-1093.
10. Freeman G, Pesudovs K. The impact of cataract severity on mea-surement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:439-442.
11. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:765-773.
12. Narvaez J, Cherwek DH, Stulting RD, et al. Comparing immersion ultrasound with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging. 2008; 39:30-34.
13. Olsen T. Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85: 84-87.
14. Hague WE, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Recruitment to randomized studies. Med J Aust. 2003;178:579-581.
15. Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Cataract Surgery Guidelines 2004. London: The Royal College of Ophthalmologists; 2004.
16. Elder MJ. Predicting the refractive outcome after cataract surgery: the comparison of different IOLs and SRK-II v SRK-T. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002;86:620-622.
17. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194.
18. The Coronary Drug Project Research Group. Influence of adher-ence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. N Engl J Med 1980;303:1038-1041.
19. Heritier SR, Gebski VJ, Keech AC. Inclusion of patients in clinical trial analysis: the intention-to-treat principle. Med J Aust. 2003;179: 438-440.
20. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. CMAJ. 2001;165:1339-1341.
21. Department of Human Services. Rural Patient Initiative 2003-2004 evaluation report. Cataract surgery at Ballarat Health Services: a joint arrangement between Ballarat Health Services and Southern Health. 2005. Available at http://www.health.vic.gov.au/surgery/cataract-surgery-ballarat0105.pdf. Accessed June 18,2006.
22. Desai P, Reidy A, Minassian DC, Vafidis G, Bolger J. Gains from cataract surgery: visual function and quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol. 1996;80:868-873.
23. Pager CK, McCluskey PJ, Retsas C. Cataract surgery in Australia: a profile of patient-centred outcomes. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004; 32:388-392.
24. Noertjojo K, Mildon D, Rollins D, et al. Cataract surgical outcome at the Vancouver Eye Care Centre: can it be predicted using current data? Can J Ophthalmol. 2004;39:38-47.
25. Santamaria L, Favilla M, Favilla I. Quality Surgical Audit, Southern Health Ophthalmology Unit 2005. 2006. Available at http:// www.health.vic.gov.au/surgery/southernhealth2005-ophthal-audit. pdf. Accessed December 13, 2007.
26. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323: 42-46.
27. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with esti-mates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273: 408-412.
28. Santamaria L, Favilla M, Favilla I, Taori S. Quality Audit, Southern Health Ophthalmology Unit 2006. 2008. Available at http:// www.health.vic.gov.au/surgery/southernhealth2006-ophthal-audit. pdf. Accessed December 5, 2008.
29. Santamaria L, Favilla M, Favilla I, Thomas B. Quality Surgical Audit, Southern Health Ophthalmology Unit 2007. 2008. Available at http://www.health.vic.gov.au/surgery/southernhealth2007-ophthal-audit.pd f. Accessed December 5, 2008.
30. Eleftheriadis H. IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87:960-963.
31. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation. 1981;64: 669-673.
32. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to Use the Evidence: Assessment and Application of Scientific Evidence. Canberra, Australia: NHMRC; 2000.
33. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC Additional Levels of Evidence and Grades for Recommendations for Developers of Guidelines. 2005. Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/consult/_files/levels_grades05.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2006.
34. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1410-1412.
35. Holladay JT, Prager TC, Ruiz RS, Lewis JW, Rosenthal H. Improving the predictability of intraocular lens power calculations. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986;104:539-541.
36. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85:472-485.