Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using Anterior Chamber Depth from Two Devices with Barrett Universal II Formula

Hannah Muniz Castro; Audrey X Tai; Samuel J Sampson; Matthew Wade; Marjan Farid; Sumit Garg

doi:10.1155/2019/8172615

Accuracy of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Using Anterior Chamber Depth from Two Devices with Barrett Universal II Formula

J Ophthalmol. 2019 Sep 23:2019:8172615. doi: 10.1155/2019/8172615. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Hannah Muniz Castro¹, Audrey X Tai², Samuel J Sampson³, Matthew Wade², Marjan Farid², Sumit Garg²

Affiliations

¹ UT Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA.
² UC Irvine Department of Ophthalmology, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, Irvine, CA, USA.
³ Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the preoperative measurements of the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by the IOLMaster and Catalys; additionally, to compare the accuracy of the IOL power calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula using the two different measurements.

Setting: University of California, Irvine, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute in Irvine, California.

Design: Retrospective comparative study.

Methods: This study included 144 eyes of 90 patients with a mean age of 72.0 years (range 40.8 to 92.1 years) that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery using Catalys. Preoperative measurements of ACD were taken by the IOLMaster and Catalys. Manifest refraction and refractive spherical equivalent were measured 1 month postoperatively. Expected refractive results were compared with actual postoperative refractive results.

Results: The correlation between the ACD values from the two devices was good (r = 0.80). The Catalys ACD measurements yielded a larger ACD compared to the IOLMaster, with a mean difference of 0.22 mm (P < 0.0001). The correlation between the postoperative and predicted RSE of the implanted IOL power was excellent (r = 0.96). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean absolute error derived from the IOLMaster, 0.37 diopter (D) ± 0.34 (SD), and the Catalys, 0.37 ± 0.35 D (P=0.50).

Conclusions: The Catalys biometry yielded a significantly larger ACD value than the IOLMaster. This difference in ACD value, however, did not reflect in a statistically significant difference in IOL power calculation and refractive prediction error using the Barrett Universal II Formula.