Comparing the postoperative refractive predictability of Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500 after a multifocal intraocular lens implantation

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the postoperative refractive predictability of IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam HR on the basis of keratometry and anterior chamber depth values in eyes with an indication for multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted on 118 eyes treated with phacoemulsification and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Only the eyes that achieved emmetropia in the dynamic refraction performed on postoperative day 30 were included. Haigis’ formula was used in each case to calculate the intraocular lens power, and the intraocular lens with the target refraction closest to emmetropia was implanted. Four lens calculation scenarios were tested by combining keratometry and anterior chamber depth measurements obtained using the two devices. Results: IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam HR differed with regard to mean keratometry (D 0.07 ± 0.03 D; p=0.0065) and anterior chamber depth (D 0.08 ± 0.01 mm; p<0.001). In the analysis of covariance, the following differences were obtained using the Haigis’ formula when confronted with the biometric values obtained by inserting keratometry and anterior chamber depth values, respectively: Penta/IOL x IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03; p<0.0001); Penta/Penta × IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03; p<0.0001); Penta/IOL × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.001); Penta/Penta × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.002); IOL/IOL × IOL/Penta (0.02 ± 0.03; p=0.865); and Penta/IOL × Penta/Penta (0.002 ± 0.03; p=0.99). The difference was smaller when measuring the anterior chamber depth using the IOLMaster 500, regardless of which device was used to measure keratometry. Conclusions: Pentacam HR significantly differed from IOLMaster 500 when calculating keratometry. As regards the anterior chamber depth, the two devices were equally accurate.

摘要 目的：以多焦点人工晶状体（intraocular lens，IOL）植入术适应证患眼的角膜曲率与前房深度测量值为基础，对比IOLMaster 500与Pentacam HR的术后屈光预测可重复性。方法：本研究为回顾性研究，纳入118眼接受超声乳化联合多焦点人工晶状体植入术的病例，仅纳入术后第30天行动态屈光检查后达到正视状态的患眼。所有病例均采用Haigis公式计算人工晶状体度数，并植入目标屈光度最接近正视的人工晶状体。通过结合两种设备获取的角膜曲率与前房深度测量值，共设置4种晶状体计算场景开展测试。结果：IOLMaster 500与Pentacam HR在平均角膜曲率（差值为0.07±0.03 D；p=0.0065）与前房深度（差值为0.08±0.01 mm；p<0.001）方面存在显著差异。协方差分析结果显示，当分别代入角膜曲率与前房深度测量值、采用Haigis公式计算时，不同测量组合的差值如下：Penta/IOL × IOL/Penta（0.13±0.03；p<0.0001）；Penta/Penta × IOL/Penta（0.13±0.03；p<0.0001）；Penta/IOL × IOL/IOL（0.11±0.03；p=0.001）；Penta/Penta × IOL/IOL（0.11±0.03；p=0.002）；IOL/IOL × IOL/Penta（0.02±0.03；p=0.865）；以及Penta/IOL × Penta/Penta（0.002±0.03；p=0.99）。无论采用何种设备测量角膜曲率，使用IOLMaster 500测量前房深度时，计算得到的差值均更小。结论：在角膜曲率计算方面，Pentacam HR与IOLMaster 500存在显著差异；而就前房深度测量而言，两种设备的准确性相当。