medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3070 (Electronic)

2019, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cub Oftal 2019; 32 (2)

Evolution of optical coherence biometry and the new platforms

Veitía RZ, Plá AME, Pérez CEC, Rodríguez SB, Durán VR, Dueñas MMM

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 277.22 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Optical coherence interferometry is an essential procedure for calculating the optical power of the intraocular lens. The present review describes the evolution of optical biometry by interferometry, the new platforms, technical features, calibration parameters, interpretation of results, and special situations in which cataract surgery is indicated. Information was collected from the databases on the Infomed platform, specifically the Virtual Health Library, PubMed, Cochrane Database-Wiley Online Library, LILACS and Scielo. IOL Master facilitates the measurement of ocular biometric parameters, since it performs solid, repeatable measurements that include fourth-generation formulas for the calculation of intraocular lens power. Several ocular biometry platforms are currently available in the market which use high resolution interferometric methods with the potential to significantly improve refractive results. These studies are characterized by their high predictability, making it possible to obtain good visual acuity and avoid refractive surprise.


REFERENCES

  1. Koopman S. Cataract Surgery Devices - Global Pipeline Analysis, Competitive Landscape and Market Forecasts to 2017. London, UK: GlobalData; 2013 [acceso: 04/04/2018]. Disponible en: https://www.asdreports.com/shopexd.asp?id=25116

  2. Cabrera J, Barojas WE. Comparación de eficacia y límites entre el IOL Máster y el ultrasonido de inmersión en el cálculo del lente intraocular en pacientes con cataratas. Rev Mex Oftalmol. 2009;83(6):360-5.

  3. Agarwal A, Fan S, Invernizzi A, Do DV, Nguyen QD, Harms NV, et al. Characterization of retinal structure and diagnosis of peripheral acquired retinoschisis using high-resolution ultrasound B-scan. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016;254(1):69-75.

  4. Torres Hernández L. Estudio de técnicas biométricas y cálculo de la lente intraocular [Tesis]. España: Universidad de Valladolid; 2012.

  5. Labiris G, Giarmoukakis A, Patsiamanidi M, Papadopoulos Z, Kozobolis VP. Mini-monovision versus multifocal intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(1):53-7.

  6. Akman A, Asena L, Gür Güngör S. Evaluation and comparison of the new swetp source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Brit J Ophthalmol. 2015;5(1):1-5.

  7. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Aramberri J, Huang J, Barboni P. Accuracy of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for IOL power calculation and comparison to IOL Master. J Refract Surg. 2017;33(10):690-5.

  8. Huang J, Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Chen H, Lu W, Hu Q, et al. Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOL Master. Brit J Ophthalmol. 2017;101(4):493-8.

  9. Mengchan S. Biometric measurements in the crystalline lens: applications in cataract surgery [Tesis]. España: Universidad de Valladolid. Facultad de Medicina; 2017.

  10. Labiris G, Sideroudi H, Rousopoulos K, Kozobolis VP. Cohesive versus dispersive-cohesive ophthalmic viscosurgical device in torsional intelligent phaco. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41(3):681-2.

  11. Rozema JJ, Wouters K, Mathysen DG, Tassignon MJ. Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2014;158(6):1111-20.

  12. López de la Fuente C, Sánchez Cano A, Segura F, Pinilla I. Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes. Biomed Res Int. 2014 [acceso: 04/04/2018]. Disponible en: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/ 2014/498080/abs/

  13. Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation after refractive surgery for myopia: Haigis-L formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34(10):1658-63.

  14. Hui S, Yi L. Comparison of two optical biometers in intraocular lens power calculation. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014;62(9):931.

  15. Labiris G, Ntonti P, Ntitsos K, Katsanos A, Sideroudi H, Kozobolis V. Comparison of the biometric measurements calculated with Zeiss iOl-Master and Wavelight OB-820. Clinical Ophthalmology; 2017 [acceso: 04/04/2018]. Disponible en: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5408945/

  16. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ. A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(7):949-53.

  17. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chirapapaisan N, Lertsuwanroj B, Chongchareon M. Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value. Graef Arch Clin Experim Ophthalmol. 2013;251(11):2563-7.

  18. Aramberri J. IOLMaster 700: Clinical experience. España: Universidad de Barcelona; 2015.

  19. Hernández Silva JR, Río Torres M, Ramos López M, Curbelo Cunill L, Ramos Pereira Y, Santiesteban García I, et. al. Facochop en la facopremium. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2014 [acceso: 04/04/2018]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid= S0864-21762014000200009

  20. Soler Fernández FL, Pascual Segarra J, Ribeiro F. Fuentes de Error en Queratometría y Biometría. En: Centurión V. Cristalino de las Américas-La cirugía del cristalino hoy. Panamá: Jaypee-Highlights Medical Publishers; 2016. p. 86-108.

  21. Park CY, Do JR, Kim SH, Lim CY, Chuck RS. The effect of head tilt on keratometric measurement using the IOLMaster. Eye (Lond). 2013;27(12):1411-7.

  22. Prager TC, Hardten DR, Fogal BJ. Enhancing intraocular lens outcome precision: an evaluation of axial length determinations, keratometry, and IOL Formulas. Ophthalmol Clin N Am. 2006;9(1):435-48.

  23. Aristodemou P, Knox-Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL. Intraocular lens formula constant optimization and partial coherence interferometry biometry: Refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(1):50-62.

  24. Varsits R, Hirnschall N, Doeller B, Findl O. Increasing the number of successful axial eye length measurements using swept-source optical coherence tomography technology compared to conventional optical biometry. Europ Soc Cat Refract Surg. 2016;17(1):52-3.

  25. Bethke W. The Integrated Cataract Surgical Suite. Review Ophthalmol. 2014;21(2):18-9.

  26. Abulafia A. Accuracy of the Barrett True-K formula for intraocular lens power prediction after laser in situ keratomileusis or photorefractive keratectomy for myopia. J Cat Refr Surg. 2016;42(3):363-9.

  27. Corcóstegui G. Cirugía combinada de catarata con vitrectomía posterior. En: Lorente R, Mendiente J. Cirugía del Cristalino. LXXIV Ponencia Oficial de la Sociedad Española de Oftalmología. Madrid: Ed Soc Esp Oftalmol; 2009. p. 1298-1303.

  28. Kim M, Kim HE, Lee DH, Koh HJ, Lee SC, Kim SS. Intraocular lens power estimation in combined phacoemulsification and pars plana vitrectomy in eyes with epiretinal membranes: a case-control study. Yons Med J. 2015;56(3):805-11.

  29. Garcés Fernández A, Veitía Rovirosa Z, López Hernández I. Cirugía de catarata en pacientes vitrectomizados. Rev Cubana Oftalmol. 2013 [acceso: 10/05/2018]. Disponible en: http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S086421762013000300012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com