Purchase this article with an account.
L. Venco, A. Cantarelli, M. Chiaravalli, L. Geroli, C. Azzolini; Comparison Between Optical Coherence Biometric Method and the Ultrasonic Biometric Method . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):2629.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The aim of this study was to evaluate two different biometric methods. We have considered the differences of the measurements of the axial lengths and the efficacy during the clinical routine in our department
In our study we considered 205 cataractous eyes, divided in two groups: Group 1 (181 eyes; medium cataract) and Group 2 (24 eyes; hard cataract).A team of four expert ophthalmologists examined all 205 eyes using both the optical coherence biometer (IOL.Master.Carl.Zeiss) and the ultrasonic biometer (A–2000.Sonomed.Inc). The results were compared and analyzed with T Student method
The IOL–Master data were not available in 3 eyes (1,65%) of Group 1 and in 11 eyes (45%) of Group 2. The average axial length in Group 1 was 22,584 mm on IOL–Master measurement and 22,580mm on the Sonomed biometer. The average axial length in Group 2 was 23,835 on the optical biometer measurement and 23,792mm on the ultrasonic biometer. In our experience we spent 1 minute average for the measurements with the optical biometer and and about 5 minutes for the measurements with the ultrasonic biometer
Comparison of measurements of the axial eye lengths in Group 1 and Group 2 showed a similar correlation with both methods. IOL–Master demonstrated a better efficacy during our clinical routine, combining good precision and substantial gain of time.The ultrasonic biometer showed less adaptability but remains indispensable in any case of bad transparency of the ocular dioptres.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only