The comparative study of applanation and optical coherence biometry methods for the intra ocular lens power calculation

  • Chandra M
  • Singh J
  • Agarwal M
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare applanation biometry (A-Scan) and optical coherence biometry (AL-Scan) methods for IOL power calculation based on Axial Length and post operative refractive outcome. Methodology: Prospective and Interventional Randomized Comparative Study, Sample size of 400, studied under two sub groups, for Axial Length readings and IOL power calculation by A-Scan (Biomedix) and AL-Scan (Nidek). Keratometry readings are taken only by AL-Scan.Results: Mean ± St. dev. of A.L. measured by App. Biometry was low (22.79 ± 0.9 mm) than Opt. Coh. Biometry (23.16 ± 0.78 mm) to be significant (P= .0001). Mean ± St. dev. IOL power was higher (21.75 ± 2.1D) than App. Biometry (20.88 ± 1.59 D) to be significant (P= 0.0001). Mean ± St. dev. of refractive status for Myopia is higher -0.97 ± 0.53 by App. Biometry than Opt. Coh. Biometry -0.5 ± 0.19, to be significant (P= 0.0001) and Mean ± St.dev. for Hyperopia is higher 0.98 ± 0.59 by App. Biometry than Opt. Coh. Biometry 0.46 ± 0.18, to be significant (P= 0.0001). Bland–Altman plots showed perfect agreement between both methods regarding A.L. and calculated IOL power. Further subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in different age groups and types of cataract for Posterior Sub capsular cataract alone and Nuclear Sclerosis with Posterior Sub capsular cataract (P= 0.001). Conclusion: There is significant difference between App. and Opt. Coh. Biometry; however, certain situations of Cataract is demanding mandatory role of App. Biometry.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chandra, M., Singh, J., Agarwal, M. C., & Titiyal, G. S. (2018). The comparative study of applanation and optical coherence biometry methods for the intra ocular lens power calculation. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Research, 6(03), 01–08. https://doi.org/10.30750/ijpbr.6.3.1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free