Journal of Ophthalmic and Optometric Sciences

Vol. 3 No. 3 (2019)

Comparing A-Mode Biometry, B-Mode Biometry and IOL Master in Measurement of Axial Length Phaco

Journal of Ophthalmic and Optometric Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3 (2019), 10 July 2019 , Page 16-22
https://doi.org/10.22037/joos.v3i3.37883

Abstract

Background: To perform a comparison of axial length (AL) measurements using A-mode biometry, B-mode biometry and IOL Master.
Material and Methods: Axial length among patients undergoing cataract surgery in Basir Eye Clinic, Tehran, Iran from May 2017 and September 2017 was determined pre-operatively using three methods. Axial length was first measured using IOLMaster 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), then by A-mode biometry using immersion technique and finally using horizontal axial B-scan immersion biometry. The interval between each examination was 5 minutes.
Results: Statistical analysis revealed strong correlations between AL measurement values obtained from A-mode and B-mode (r = 0.983, p < 0.001), A mode and IOLMaster (r = 0.999, p < 0.001) as well as B-mode and IOLMaster (r = 0.984, p <0.001). All correlations were strong but the strongest correlation was observed between A mode and IOLMaster methods.
Conclusion: A-mode biometry showed a stronger correlation with IOL Master AL readings compared to B-Mode, thus when there are limited resources and the optical method is not accessible, A-mode immersion echography is proffered as an alternative to IOLMaster.
Keywords: Biometry; IOLMaster; Axial Length; Comparison.

Keywords:
  • Biometry
  • IOLMaster
  • Axial Length
  • Comparison

How to Cite

Amoozadeh , M. ., Ghorbanalizadeh, F. ., Noorizadeh, F. ., Shojaei, A. ., Sobhani, S. ., Vafaei, A. ., & Moradi, A. . (2019). Comparing A-Mode Biometry, B-Mode Biometry and IOL Master in Measurement of Axial Length : Phaco. Journal of Ophthalmic and Optometric Sciences, 3(3), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.22037/joos.v3i3.37883

References

Peterson SR, Silva PA, Murtha TJ, Sun JK. Cataract Surgery in Patients with Diabetes: Management Strategies. Semin Ophthalmol. 2018;33(1):75-82.

Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Rezvan F, Etemad K, Gilasi H, Asgari S, Mahdavi A, Mohazzab-Torabi S, Fotouhi A. Complications of Cataract Surgery in Iran: Trend from 2006 to 2010. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2016;23(1):46-52.

Pokharel GP, Regmi G, Shrestha SK, Negrel AD, Ellwein LB. Prevalence of blindness and cataract surgery in Nepal. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998;82(6):600-5.

Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(4):593-600.

Velez-Montoya R, Shusterman EM, López-Miranda MJ, Mayorquin-Ruiz M, Salcedo-Villanueva G, Quiroz-Mercado H, et al. Comparison of the biometric values obtained by two different A-mode ultrasound devices (Eye Cubed vs. PalmScan): a transversal, descriptive, and comparative study. BMC Ophthalmol. 2010;10:8.

Bergès O, Puech M, Assouline M, Letenneur L, Gastellu-Etchegorry M. B-mode-guided vector-A-mode versus A-mode biometry to determine axial length and intraocular lens power. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(4):529-35.

Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, Coffman PG, Brown LK. Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28(2):239-42.

Abu El Einen KG, Shalaby MH, El Shiwy HT. Immersion B-guided versus contact A-mode biometry for accurate measurement of axial length and intraocular lens power calculation in siliconized eyes. Retina. 2011;31(2):262-5.

Yang QH, Chen B, Peng GH, Li ZH, Huang YF. Accuracy of axial length measurements from immersion B-scan ultrasonography in highly myopic eyes. Int J Ophthalmol. 2014;7(3):441-5.

Hoffmann PC, Hütz WW, Eckhardt HB, Heuring AH. IOL-Berechnung und Ultraschallbiometrie: Immersions- und Kontaktverfahren [Intraocular lens calculation and ultrasound biometry: immersion and contact procedures]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1998;213(3):161-5. (Article in German)

Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(9):1201-5.

Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond). 2002 ;16(5):552-6.

Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(3):513-7.

Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(1):13-7.

Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, Rainer G, Vass C, Hitzenberger CK, Fercher AF. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998;126(4):524-34.

Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Blom E, Dick HB. Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 ;29(4):741-6.

Németh J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N. Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29(1):85-8.

Dessì G, Lahuerta EF, Puce FG, Mendoza LH, Stefanini T, Rosenberg I, Del Prato A, Perinetti M, Villa A. Role of B-scan ocular ultrasound as an adjuvant for the clinical assessment of eyeball diseases: a pictorial essay. J Ultrasound. 2014;18(3):265-77. 19.

Yang Q, Chen B, Peng G, Li Z, Huang Y. Accuracy of immersion B-scan ultrasound biometry in high myopic patients with cataract. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi. 2014;50(1):32-6. (Article in Chinese)

  • Abstract Viewed: 80 times
  • pdf Downloaded: 109 times

Download Statastics

Current Issue