Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices

Mehlan Juliane; Lehman Anne-Isabel; Cichocki Myriam; Druchkiv Vasyl; Katz Toam; Stephan J Linke

doi:10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349

Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices

J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2022 Nov 29;17(4):453-461. doi: 10.18502/jovr.v17i4.12349. eCollection 2022 Oct-Dec.

Authors

Mehlan Juliane¹, Lehman Anne-Isabel¹, Cichocki Myriam¹, Druchkiv Vasyl¹, Katz Toam^{1

2}, Stephan J Linke^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Ophthalmology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
² CareVision Hamburg, Germany.
³ Zentrumsehstärke, Hamburg, Germany.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the results of the current gold standard, laser interferometry, and keratometry by the IOL-Master, with a newly developed Galilei G6 using raytracing software Okulix for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations.

Methods: For comparison of the IOL-power calculation of both devices, we analyzed the difference between the actual one-month postoperative subjective refraction and the theoretically calculated target refraction before cataract surgery. The IOL was selected according to the IOL Master recommendation aiming for emmetropia after surgery.We analyzed the differences of the measurements of the basic biometric data in 205 healthy eyes by each device.

Results: Our study included 205 healthy, unoperated eyes from 117 patients (61 women, 56 men) aged 20 to 75 years. Twenty-two eyes of cataract patients were also included in this retrospective study design. The mean difference between the prediction of the postoperative refraction and the refraction actually achieved was 0.03 D for the IOL Master and -0.23 D for the Galilei G6. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). The difference between the IOL power calculation of the IOL Master and the calculation of the G6 was not statistically significant (P = 0.064). The difference between the predicted refraction of the G6 and the refraction achieved after one month was also not statistically significant (P = 0.12) and neither was the difference between the predicted refraction of the IOL Master and the achieved refraction (P = 0.39). The mean axial length was calculated as 24.21 $\pm$ 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 $\pm$ 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 $\pm$ 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 $\pm$ 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 $\pm$ 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 $\pm$ 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (P $<$ 0.001).

Conclusion: Both the laser interferometry/keratometry performed by the IOL Master and the interferometry/raytracing biometry strategy performed by the Galilei G6 demonstrated equal results when executing the IOL power calculation before cataract surgery in eyes with no prior ocular surgery.

Keywords: IOL Calculation; Ray Tracing; Cataract Surgery.