Comparison of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation between Standard Partial Coherence Interferometry-Based and Scheimpflug-Based Biometers: The Importance of Lens Constant Optimization.

PURPOSE

To compare the intraocular lens (IOLs) power calculated with Haigis, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and SRK/T formulas between the IOLs Master 500 and Pentacam AXL according to the lens status.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, sampling was done in subjects above 60 years living in Tehran using multi-stage cluster sampling. All participants underwent optometric examinations including the measurement of visual acuity and refraction as well as slit-lamp biomicroscopy to determine the lens status. Biometric measurements and IOLs power calculation were done using the IOL Master 500 and Pentacam AXL. The order of imaging modalities was random in subjects. IOL power calculation was done according to optimized ULIB constants for the Alcon SA60AT lens. The IOL power was calculated according to a target refraction of emmetropia in all subjects.

RESULTS

After applying the exclusion criteria, 1865 right eyes were analyzed. The mean IOL difference between the two devices was -0.33 ± 0.35, -0.38 ± 0.39, -0.41 ± 0.43, and -0.51 ± 0.43 according to the SRK/T, Holladay, Hoffer Q, and Haigis formulas, respectively. The Pentacam calculated larger IOL power values in all cases. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) between the two devices for the above formulas were -1.01 to 0.35, -1.14 to 0.39, -1.25 to 0.43, and -1.35 to 0.33, respectively. The best LoA were observed in normal lenses for all formulas. The difference in the calculated IOL power between the two devices using the four formulas had a significant correlation with axial length, mean keratometry reading, and anterior chamber depth. According to the results of the four formulas, mean keratometry reading had the highest standardized regression coefficient in all formulas.

CONCLUSION

Although the difference in the calculated IOL power between IOL Master 500 and Pentacam AXL is not significant clinically, the results of these two devices are not interchangeable due to the wide LoA, especially for the Haigis formula; therefore, it is necessary to optimize lens constants for the Pentacam.