Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Int Ophthalmol. 2021 Apr;41(4):1521-1530. doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01714-3. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
To evaluate differences in preoperative measurements and refractive outcomes between ultrasound and optical biometry when using the Barrett Universal II intraocular lens (IOL) power formula.
In this consecutive case series, cataract extraction and IOL implantation cases from two surgical centers in Toronto, Canada, were recruited between January 2015 and July 2017. Differences between ultrasound (applanation or immersion A-scan) and optical biometry (IOLMaster 500) were compared for axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth and refractive outcomes. The primary outcome was the percentage of cases in each cohort within ± 0.50D of refractive error.
In total, 527 cataract cases underwent IOLMaster testing. Of these, 329 eyes (62.4%) were also measured by applanation A-scan, and the other 198 eyes (37.6%) received immersion A-scan testing. Applanation ultrasound led to 5.8%, 16.0% and 46.4% of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D of refractive error, respectively, whereas the IOLMaster 500 led to 48.5%, 77.1% and 94.9%, respectively (n = 293, ± 0.50D: p < 0.001). Immersion ultrasound led to 31.2%, 57.6% and 91.2% of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D of refractive error, respectively, whereas the IOLMaster 500 led to 42.4%, 72.0% and 92.0%, respectively (n = 125, ± 0.50D: p = 0.001). Applanation (n = 329, A-scan AL: 23.64 ± 1.67 mm, IOLMaster AL: 24.20 ± 1.70 mm, p < 0.001) and immersion ultrasound (n = 198, A-scan AL: 25.01 ± 2.06 mm, IOLMaster AL: 25.08 ± 2.13 mm, p = 0.002) yielded significantly lower AL values compared to optical biometry measurements.
Optical biometry yielded a significantly larger percentage of cases within ± 0.50D of refractive error compared to ultrasound biometry when using the Barrett Universal II IOL power formula.
评估在使用巴雷特通用 II 人工晶状体（IOL）屈光力公式时，超声和光学生物测量在术前测量和屈光结果方面的差异。
本连续病例系列研究纳入了 2015 年 1 月至 2017 年 7 月期间加拿大多伦多两个外科中心的白内障摘除和 IOL 植入病例。比较了超声（压平或浸入 A 扫描）和光学生物测量（IOLMaster 500）在眼轴长度（AL）、前房深度和屈光结果方面的差异。主要结局是每个队列中屈光误差在±0.50D 以内的病例百分比。
共有 527 例白内障病例接受了 IOLMaster 测试。其中，329 只眼（62.4%）同时接受了压平 A 扫描测量，另外 198 只眼（37.6%）接受了浸入 A 扫描测试。压平超声导致 5.8%、16.0%和 46.4%的眼在±0.25D、±0.50D 和±1.00D 的屈光误差范围内，而 IOLMaster 500 则导致 48.5%、77.1%和 94.9%（n=293，±0.50D：p<0.001）。浸入超声导致 31.2%、57.6%和 91.2%的眼在±0.25D、±0.50D 和±1.00D 的屈光误差范围内，而 IOLMaster 500 则导致 42.4%、72.0%和 92.0%（n=125，±0.50D：p=0.001）。压平（n=329，A 扫描 AL：23.64±1.67mm，IOLMaster AL：24.20±1.70mm，p<0.001）和浸入超声（n=198，A 扫描 AL：25.01±2.06mm，IOLMaster AL：25.08±2.13mm，p=0.002）与光学生物测量相比，AL 值显著降低。
在使用巴雷特通用 II 人工晶状体屈光力公式时，与超声生物测量相比，光学生物测量在±0.50D 以内的屈光误差病例百分比显著更大。
