Sardari Sara, Khabazkhoob Mehdi, Jafarzadehpur Ebrahim, Fotouhi Akbar
Research and Technology Deputy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Noor Ophthalmology Research Center, Noor Eye Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
J Curr Ophthalmol. 2023 Aug 11;35(1):42-49. doi: 10.4103/joco.joco_32_23. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.
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.
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.
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.
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.
根据晶状体状态，比较IOL Master 500和Pentacam AXL之间使用Haigis、Hoffer Q、Holladay 1和SRK/T公式计算的人工晶状体（IOL）度数。
在这项横断面研究中，采用多阶段整群抽样方法，对居住在德黑兰的60岁以上受试者进行抽样。所有参与者均接受了验光检查，包括视力和屈光度测量以及裂隙灯生物显微镜检查，以确定晶状体状态。使用IOL Master 500和Pentacam AXL进行生物测量和IOL度数计算。受试者成像方式的顺序是随机的。IOL度数计算是根据爱尔康SA60AT晶状体的优化ULIB常数进行的。所有受试者的IOL度数均根据正视眼的目标屈光度进行计算。
应用排除标准后，对1865只右眼进行了分析。根据SRK/T、Holladay、Hoffer Q和Haigis公式，两种设备之间的平均IOL差异分别为-0.33±0.35 D、-0.38±0.39 D、-0.41±0.43 D和-0.51±0.43 D。在所有情况下，Pentacam计算出的IOL度数更高。上述公式两种设备之间的95%一致性界限（LoA）分别为-1.01至0.35 D、-1.14至0.39 D、-1.25至0.43 D和-1.35至0.33 D。所有公式在正常晶状体中观察到最佳的LoA。使用这四个公式计算的两种设备之间IOL度数的差异与眼轴长度、平均角膜曲率读数和前房深度显著相关。根据四个公式的结果，平均角膜曲率读数在所有公式中具有最高的标准化回归系数。
尽管IOL Master 500和Pentacam AXL之间计算的IOL度数差异在临床上不显著，但由于LoA较宽，尤其是对于Haigis公式，这两种设备的结果不可互换；因此，有必要为Pentacam优化晶状体常数。
