IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Originally published In Press as doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3087 on January 24, 2009
 (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2009;50:2547-2552.)
© 2009 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
doi:10.1167/iovs.08-3087
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
iovs.08-3087v1
50/6/2547    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raymond, S.
Right arrow Articles by Santamaria, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raymond, S.
Right arrow Articles by Santamaria, L.

Comparing Ultrasound Biometry with Partial Coherence Interferometry for Intraocular Lens Power Calculations: A Randomized Study

Simon Raymond,1,2 Ian Favilla,1,2 and Linda Santamaria1,2

1From the Department of Surgery, Monash University, Victoria, Australia; and the 2Ophthalmology Unit, Southern Health, Victoria, Australia

PURPOSE. To determine whether intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations for cataract surgery as measured by postoperative refractive error using partial coherence interferometry (PCI) are more accurate in improving postoperative outcomes than applanation ultrasound biometry (AUS).

METHODS. A double-blind randomized controlled trial consisting of 205 patients was undertaken by the Southern Health Ophthalmology Unit, Victoria, Australia. Mean absolute postoperative refractive error (MAE) represented the dependent variable; the biometric technique (PCI; AUS) used to determine the IOL power to be implanted in the surgical eye represented the independent variable. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to prevent loss of randomization caused by the effects of crossover and drop-out.

RESULTS. The MAE in patients with implanted PCI-calculated IOLs was 0.40 ± 0.37 D (SD; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.48 D) compared with 0.45 ± 0.41 D (SD; 95% CI, 0.36–0.54 D) for patients with implanted AUS-calculated IOLs. There was no statistically significant difference between MAE in patients with implanted PCI-calculated IOLs and that in patients with AUS-calculated IOLs in analysis of best possible outcomes (t167 = 1.0, P = 0.315).

CONCLUSIONS. The results of this trial demonstrated that the calculation of IOL power based on ocular axial length measurement with PCI technology provided no clinical advantage over conventional applanation ultrasound, as measured by postoperative refractive outcome (anzctr.org.au number, ACTRN12608000077369).






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology