Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim of the study was to compare the measurements of optical (AL-Scan; Nidek Co., Ltd.) and ultrasonic (Echo Scan US-800; Nidek Co., Ltd.) biometry devices and to assess refractive results after cataract surgery. Eighty-one cataractous eyes of 81 patients were included in this study. Biometry was performed using the AL-Scan and an ultrasonic biometer (USB). Axial length (AL), keratometry (K) data, and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations using the SRK/T formula were compared. Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the extent of agreement between AL-Scan and USB data in terms of AL measurement and IOL power calculation. The K measurements of the AL-Scan were compared to autorefractor data (Canon Autorefractor RK-F1). The AL-Scan assessed the AL as longer (average difference 0.06 ± 0.18 mm; ICC = 0.987; P < 0.001) and the IOL power as greater (average difference 0.19 ± 0.66 D; ICC = 0.964; P < 0.001) than the USB. The AL-Scan also measured average K values (average difference 0.25 ± 0.25 D; ICC = 0.985; P < 0.001) greater than those given by the autorefractor. The postoperative mean absolute error was +0.30 ± 0.04 D (minimum: -0.51 D, maximum +1.04 D). The postoperative mean K value change was 0.36 ± 0.29 D (P < 0.05). The differences between measurements afforded by the AL-Scan and USB may be clinically acceptable. Keratometric changes that develop after cataract operations compromise the attainment of good refractive outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aktaş et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: