Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation using a standard ultrasonic biometer and a new optical biometer

KAYA F., Koçak I., Aydin A., Baybora H., Karadayi K.

International Eye Science, vol.16, no.5, pp.807-810, 2016 (Scopus) identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 16 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2016
  • Doi Number: 10.3980/j.issn.1672-5123.2016.5.04
  • Journal Name: International Eye Science
  • Journal Indexes: Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.807-810
  • Keywords: Aladdin optical biometer, Axial length, Intraocular lens power calculation, Postoperative refractive error, Ultrasonic biometer
  • Istanbul Medipol University Affiliated: Yes


AIM:To compare the intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations and refractive outcomes obtained with a new optical biometer and standard ultrasonic biometer in phacoemulsification surgery. METHODS:Thirty-seven eyes of 37 cataract patients who underwent phacoemulsification with IOL implantation were included in this prospective comparative study. The same operator performed biometer measurements in eyes with cataract using a new optical biometer (Aladdin) and a standard ultrasonic biometer (Sonomed AB 5500). Biometric parameters; axial length (AL), keratometric (K) readings, anterior chamber depth (ACD) and IOL power obtained by two devices were recorded. Postoperative actual refractive errors and errors predicted by two devices according to SRK/T formula were analyzed. The mean estimation error (EE), mean absolute estimation error (AEE) and the biometric parameters obtained by two biometers were compared. RESULTS:The AL measured by Aladdin (23.45±0.73 mm) was significantly longer than AL by ultrasonic biometer (23.2±0.75 mm) (P=0.01). The mean EE and AEE values obtained by Aladdin were significantly smaller than the values by ultrasonic biometer (P=0.0006 and 0.03 respectively). The higher percentage of eyes within ±0.5 and ±1.00 D of target refraction was also found by using Aladdin (67% and 97%). CONCLUSION:The Aladdin optical biometer showed better accuracy and yielded better refractive outcomes compared with ultrasonic biometer.