Download fulltext HTML
1.
Ghaffari R, Abdi P, Moghaddasi A, Heidarzadeh S, Ghahvhechian H, Kasiri M. Ray Tracing versus Thin-Lens Formulas for IOL Power Calculation Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry. JOVR [Internet]. 2022Apr.29 [cited 2024Apr.25];17(2):176–185. Available from: https://knepublishing.com/index.php/JOVR/article/view/10788

https://doi.org/10.18502/jovr.v17i2.10788

statistics

  • 879 Abstract Views
  • 414 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views
  • Cited by 3 articles

authors

  • Reza Ghaffari

    Reza Ghaffari

    Eye Research Center, Department of Cornea, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Parisa Abdi

    Parisa Abdi

    Eye Research Center, Department of Cornea, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Alireza Moghaddasi

    Alireza Moghaddasi

    Eye Research Center, Department of Cornea, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Somayeh Heidarzadeh

    Somayeh Heidarzadeh

    Eye Research Center, Department of Cornea, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Hossein Ghahvhechian

    Hossein Ghahvhechian

    Eye Research Center, The Five Senses Health Institute, Rassoul Akram Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Maryam Kasiri

    Maryam Kasiri

    Eye Research Center, Department of Cornea, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Published Date

  • Apr 29, 2022
This journal is publishing all the articles under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0.

Ray Tracing versus Thin-Lens Formulas for IOL Power Calculation Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry

Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research (JOVR) / April–June 2022, Volume 17, Issue 2 / Pages 176–185

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the ray tracing method's accuracy employing Okulix ray tracing software and thin-lens formulas to calculate intraocular lens (IOL) power using a swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer (OA2000).


Methods: A total of 188 eyes from 180 patients were included in this study. An OA-2000 optical biometer was used to collect biometric data. The predicted postoperative refraction based on thin-lens formulas including SRK/T, Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, and Haigis formulas and the ray tracing method utilizing the OKULIX software was determined for each patient. To compare the accuracy of approaches, the prediction error and the absolute prediction error were determined.


Results: The mean axial length (AL) was 23.66 mm (range: 19–35). In subgroup analysis based on AL, in all ranges of ALs the ray tracing method had the lowest mean absolute error (0.56), the lowest standard deviation (SD; 0.55), and the greatest proportion of patients within 1 diopter of predicted refraction (87.43%) and the lowest absolute prediction error compared to the other formulas (except to SRK/T) in the AL range between 22 and 24 mm (all P < 0.05). In addition, the OKULIX and Haigis formulas had the least variance (variability) in the prediction error in different ranges of AL.


Conclusion: The ray tracing method had the lowest mean absolute error, the lowest standard deviation, and the greatest proportion of patients within 1 diopter of predicted refraction. So, the OKULIX software in combination with SS-OCT biometry (OA2000) performed on par with the third-generation and Haigis formulas, notwithstanding the potential for increased accuracy in the normal range and more consistent results in different ranges of AL.

Keywords:

Biometry, Intraocular, Lenses, Optical Phenomena, Phacoemulsification

References
1. 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;158:1111–20.e1.

2. Preussner PR, Wahl J, Lahdo H, Dick B, Findl O. Ray tracing for intraocular lens calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002;28:1412–1419.

3. Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:1201–1205.

4. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, et al. Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:1277–1281.

5. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G. Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010;36:644–648.

6. Mandal P, Berrow EJ, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS, Uthoff D, Holland D, et al. Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 2014;98:256–258.

7. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EAH, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS. A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86:458.

8. Wang Q, Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Xu Z, Feng Y, Wen D, et al. A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices. PLOS One 2012;7:e45607.

9. Kongsap P. Comparison of a new optical biometer and a standard biometer in cataract patients. Eye and Vis 2016;3:27.

10. Nabil K. Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry and OKULIX ray tracing software in high myopic cataract patients. Delta J Ophthalmol 2017;18:77–80.

11. Saiki M, Negishi K, Kato N, Torii H, Dogru M, Tsubota K. Ray tracing software for intraocular lens power calculation after corneal excimer laser surgery. Jpn J Ophthalmol 2014;58:276–281.

12. Olsen T, Funding M. Ray-tracing analysis of intraocular lens power in situ. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012;38:641–647.

13. Hoffmann P, Wahl J, Preussner PR. Accuracy of intraocular lens calculation with ray tracing. J Refract Surg 2012;28:650–655.

14. Jin H, Rabsilber T, Ehmer A, Borkenstein AF, Limberger IJ, Guo H, et al. Comparison of ray-tracing method and thin-lens formula in intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009;35:650–662.

15. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 11979-2:2014. Ophthalmic implants – Intraocular lenses – Part 2: Optical properties and test methods 2014 [Internet]. ISO; 2014. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/55682.html

16. Hoffmann PC, Auel S, Hutz WW. Results of higher power toric intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1411–1418.

17. Preussner PR, Hoffmann P, Petermeier K. [Comparison between ray-tracing and IOL calculation formulae of the 3rd generation]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2009;226:83– 89.

18. Hoffer KJ. The Hoffer Q formula: A comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19:700–712.

19. Brandser R, Haaskjold E, Drolsum L. Accuracy of IOL calculation in cataract surgery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1997;75:162–165.

20. Hoffmann PC, Lindemann CR. Intraocular lens calculation for aspheric intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2013;39:867–872.

21. Cooke DL, Cooke TL. Prediction accuracy of preinstalled formulas on 2 optical biometers. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:358–362.

22. Haigis W. Occurrence of erroneous anterior chamber depth in the SRK/T formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993;19:442–446.

23. Lyle WA, Jin GJC. Prospective evaluation of early visual and refractive effects with small clear corneal incision for cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:1456– 1460.

24. Masket S, Tennen DG. Astigmatic stabilization of 3.0 mm temporal clear corneal cataract incisions. J Cataract Refract Surg 1996;22:1451–1455.

25. Cooke DL, Cooke TL. Comparison of 9 intraocular lens power calculation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:1157–1164.

26. Hoffer KJ, Hoffmann PC, Savini G. Comparison of a new optical biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a biometer using optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016;42:1165–1172.