Background: The availability of premium intraocular lenses (IOL), including toric, multifocal, and EDOF, has become very sophisticated and now demands accurate biometric measurement accuracy. The Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 700 are often used for optical biometry and they are available in the market today. They can also be used to measure the parameters needed in the IOL calculation using the latest generation formulas, such as the Barett Universal II. Therefore, this study aims to compare the accuracy of refraction results between Pentacam AXL compared to IOL Master 700 after cataract surgery with the Barett Universal-II formula. Method: A total of 64 eyes from 64 patients who had a preoperative examination with IOL Master 700 and Pentacam AXL were included in this study. Parameters such as K, ACD, LT, WTW, and AL were then compared between the two tools. Prediction error values were also calculated and compared based on the difference between the Spherical equivalent (SE) of subjective refraction results after 4 weeks of surgery with their refractive prediction targets. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the parameters measured from the two tools except ACD and WTW. Furthermore, LT was difficult to obtain on the Pentacam AXL due to penetration problems, as well as in patients with significant lens opacities. The percentage of error prediction values that reach ± 0.50 D on Pentacam AXL and IOL Master 700 was 70.3% and 73.5%, respectively. However, the average prediction error that was close to emmetropia with IOL Master 700 was greater compared to the other tool. Conclusion: Pentacam AXL has a fairly good accuracy for refraction prediction compared to IOL Master 700. However, it is still necessary to optimize its constants to obtain optimal results.
References
[1]
Wozniak, M.M. and Oleszko, A. (2019) Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Measurements Performed on a Scheimpflug Device with Biometry Function and a Reference Optical Biometer. International Ophthalmology, 39, 1115-1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-0927-x
[2]
Haddad, J.S., Barnwell, E., Rocha, K.M., Ambrosio Jr., R. and Waring, G.O. (2020) Comparison of Biometry Measurements Using Standard Partial Coherence Interferometry versus New Scheimplug Tomography with Integrated Axial Length Capability. Clinical Ophthalmology, 14, 353-358. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S238112
[3]
Zhou, D., Sun, Z. and Deng, G. (2019) Accuracy of the Refractive Prediction Determined by Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas in High Myopia. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 67, 484-489. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_937_18
[4]
Taroni, L., Hoffer, K., Barboni, P., et al. (2020) Outcomes of IOL Power Calculation Using Measurements by a Rotating Scheimpflug Camera Combined with Partial Coherence Interferometry. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 46, 1618-1623. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000361
[5]
Rodrigues, F.W., Freitas, M.P.B., Oliveira, J.N., Silva, R.E., Chater, S.B. and Filho, J.C. (2020) Analysis of Biometric Data Generated by Interferometry Compared with Scheimpflug. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia, 79, 289-293. https://doi.org/10.5935/0034-7280.20200062
[6]
Xia, T., Martinez, C.E. and Tsai, L.M. (2020) Update on Intraocular Lens Formulas and Calculations. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology (Phila), 9, 186-193. https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000293
[7]
Park, D.-Y., Lim, D.H., Hwang, S., et al. (2017) Comparison of Astigmatism Prediction Error Taken with the Pentacam Measurements, Baylor Nomogram, and Barrett Formula for Toric Intraocular Lens Implantation. BMC Ophthalmology, 17, Article No. 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-017-0550-z
[8]
Arruda, H.A., Pereira, J.M., Neves, A., Vieira, M.J., Martins, J. and Sousa, J.C. (2021) Lenstar LS 900 versus Pentacam-AXL: Analysis of Refractive Outcomes and Predicted Refraction. Scientific Reports, 11, Article No. 1449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81146-2
[9]
Shi, Q., Wang, G.-Y., Cheng, Y.-H., et al. (2021) Comparison of IOL-Master 700 and IOL-Master 500 Biometers in Ocular Biological Parameters of Adolescents. International Journal of Ophthalmology, 14, 1013-1017. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.07.08
[10]
Shajari, M., Cremonese, C., Petermann, K., et al. (2017) Comparison of Axial Length, Corneal and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements of Two Recently Introduced Devices to a Known Biometer. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 178, 58-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2017.02.027
[11]
Chan, T., Wan, K., Tang, F., et al. (2019) Repeatability and Agreement of a Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometer IOLMaster 700 Versus a Scheimpflug Imaging-Based Biometer AL-Scan in Cataract Patients. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice, 46, 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000603
[12]
Sel, S., Stange, J., Kaiser, D. and Kiraly, L. (2017) Repeatability and Agreement of Scheimpfug-Based and Swept-Source Optical Biometry Measurements. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye, 40, 318-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.007
[13]
Wang, Z., Yang, W., Li, D., et al. (2021) Evaluation and Comparison of a Novel Scheimpflug-Based Optical Biometer with Standard Partial Coherence Interferometry for Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 21, Article No. 326. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.9757
[14]
Özyol, P. and Özyol, E. (2016) Agreement between Swept-Source Optical Biometry and Scheimpflug-Based Topography Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 169, 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.06.020
[15]
Jung, S., Chin, H., Kim, N.R., et al. (2017) Comparison of Repeatability and Agreement between Swept-Source Optical Biometry and Dual-Scheimpflug Topography. Journal of Ophthalmology, 2017, Article ID: 1516395. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1516395
[16]
Li, X., Cao, X. and Bao, Y. (2022) Comparison of Total Corneal Astigmatism between IOL Master and Pentacam. BioMed Research International, 2022, Article ID: 9236006. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9236006
[17]
Ruan, X., Yang, G.Y., Xia, Z., et al. (2022) Agreement of Anterior Segment Parameter Measurements with CASIA 2 and IOLMaster 700. Frontiers of Medicine, 9, Article ID: 777443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.777443
[18]
Gjerdrum, B., Gundersen, K.G., Lundmark, P.O. and Aakre, B.M. (2020) Repeatability of OCT-Based versus Scheimpflug and Reflection-Based Keratometry in Patients with Hyperosmolar and Normal Tear Film. Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 14, 3991-4003. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S280868
[19]
Hiraoka, T., Asano, H., Ogami, T. et al. (2022) Influence of Dry Eye Disease on the Measurement Repeatability of Corneal Curvature Radius and Axial Length in Patients with Cataract. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11, Article 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030710
[20]
Vega, Y., Gershoni, A., Achiron, A., et al. (2021) High Agreement between Barrett Universal Ii Calculations with and without Utilization of Optional Biometry Parameters. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, Article 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10030542
[21]
Cooke, D.L. and Cooke, T.L. (2016) Comparison of 9 Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 42, 1157-1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.029
[22]
Cheng, H., Li, J., Cheng, B., et al. (2020) Refractive Predictability Using Two Optical Biometers and Refraction Types for Intraocular Lens Power Calculation in Cataract Surgery. International Ophthalmology, 40, 1849-1856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01355-y
