Comparing immersion ultrasound with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculation.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the utility and accuracy of high-precision immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and the IOL Master system (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) in a tertiary care referral center.


METHODS
Comparative clinical study in a tertiary care, multispecialty, university practice. Participants were consecutive patients scheduled for cataract surgery at Emory Eye Center. Patients underwent biometry using immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and the IOL Master system.


RESULTS
Twenty-two percent of eyes undergoing surgery could not be measured using interferometry. In those eyes measurable by both methods, there was no difference in measurements nor postoperative refractive outcome. Each method had a high repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.99) with a high intraclass correlation between methods (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.99).


CONCLUSIONS
When it can be used, interferometry is equivalent to immersion ultrasonography regarding biometric accuracy and precision. However, it cannot replace ultrasonography, especially for eyes with dense media opacity.
Narváez
Julio
J
Department of Ophthalmology Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92354, USA.
Cherwek
D Hunter
DH
Stulting
R Doyle
RD
Waldron
Rhonda
R
Zimmerman
Grenith J
GJ
Wessels
Izak F
IF
Waring
George O
GO
D000867:Anterior Chamber / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D001699:Biometry / Q000379:methods*; D002387:Cataract Extraction; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007368:Interferometry / Q000379:methods*; D007908:Lens, Crystalline / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D007910:Lenses, Intraocular; D008027:Light; D008297:Male; D012031:Refractometry; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D014463:Ultrasonography / Q000379:methods*