Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes
Khalil, H., Mohammed, S., Kamel, H., Ibrahim, O. (2025). Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes. EKB Journal Management System, 6(4), 17-26. doi: 10.21608/ejmr.2024.306598.1649
Hossam Eldein Mohamed Khalil; Sahar Ibrahim Mohammed; Hesham Foad Kamel; Osama Khedr Ibrahim. "Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes". EKB Journal Management System, 6, 4, 2025, 17-26. doi: 10.21608/ejmr.2024.306598.1649
Khalil, H., Mohammed, S., Kamel, H., Ibrahim, O. (2025). 'Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes', EKB Journal Management System, 6(4), pp. 17-26. doi: 10.21608/ejmr.2024.306598.1649
Khalil, H., Mohammed, S., Kamel, H., Ibrahim, O. Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes. EKB Journal Management System, 2025; 6(4): 17-26. doi: 10.21608/ejmr.2024.306598.1649

Optical Biometry versus Conventional Acoustic Biometry in Post Operative Refraction in Silicon Filled Eyes

Egyptian Journal of Medical Research
Volume 6, Issue 4, October 2025, Pages 17-26    PDF (404.94 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/ejmr.2024.306598.1649
Authors
Hossam Eldein Mohamed Khalil1; Sahar Ibrahim Mohammed1; Hesham Foad Kamel2; Osama Khedr Ibrahim* 2
1Ophthalmology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University
2Ophthalmology Department, Research Institute of Ophthalmology
Abstract
Background: The use of traditional ultrasound biometry for intraocular lens (IOL) selection before cataract surgery requires a skilled operator, good corneal surface contact, and significant time expenditure. The introduction of non-contact optical biometry has revolutionized preoperative IOL calculation by eliminating these obstacles. One instrument (Intraocular Lens Master [IOLm]; Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), which uses partial coherence interferometry (PCI) technology, was introduced in 2000. Since then, it had been touted for its fast operation without requiring corneal Contact.  Aim of the Work: To compare intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations for cataract surgery in silicon filled eyes by evaluating postoperative refraction using A‑scan biometry versus PCI-based optical biometry. Patients and Methods: This prospective observational study included 30 eyes scheduled for phacoemulsification and silicon oil removal which was conducted at Ophthalmology Department of Beni-Suef University Hospital on January 2023. Patients came seeking biometry using IOL master & A scan, 30 eyes were chosen.  Results: This study was demonstrated that there is statistically non-significant difference between the studied groups regarding baseline Logmar best corrected visual acuity. While postoperatively, there is statistically significant difference between both groups regarding Logmar BCVA (median postoperative Logmar BCVA was 0.3 versus 0.7 with IOL master and A scan groups respectively). This study was cleared that on assessing predicted SE and actual postoperative SE in both groups, there was statistically non-significant difference. Conclusion: IOL master is more accurate and reliable method of IOL power calculation resulting in better visual outcomes as compared to A scan acoustic biometry in silicon filled eyes. Further clinical trials are required on eyes with dense cataract and poor visual acuity biometry using IOL master and A scan acoustic biometry.
Keywords
Optical Biometry; Conventional Acoustic Biometry; Silicon Filled Eyes
References

  1. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye 2002; 16(5): 552–6.
  2. Nepp J, Krepler K, Jandrasits K, Hauff W, Hanselmayer G, Velikay-Parel M, Ossoinig KC, Wedrich A. Biometry and refractive outcome of eyes filled with silicone oil by standardized echography and partial coherence interferometry. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 2005; 243:967-72.
  3. Roessler GF, Huth JK, Dietlein TS, Dinslage S, Plange N, Walter P. Accuracy and reproducibility of axial length measurement in eyes with silicone oil endotamponade. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93(11): 1492–4.
  4. Wang K, Yuan MK, Jiang YR, Bao YZ, Li XX. Axial length measurements before and after removal of silicone oil: a new method to correct the axial length of silicone-filled eyes for optical biometry. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2009;29(4):449–57.
  5. Ueda T, Taketani F, Ota T, Hara Y. Impact of nuclear cataract density on postoperative refractive outcome: IOL Master versus ultrasound. Ophthalmologica 2017; 221(6): 384–7.
  6. Rafique A, Zafar O, Khan S. Comparison Of Optical Biometry And A Scan For Calculation Of Intraocular Lens Power In Age Related Nuclear Cataract At Tertiary Care Eye Hospital. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal. 2021; 71(5): 1828-32.
  7. Pereira A, Popovic M, Lloyd JC, El-Defrawy S, Schlenker MB. Preoperative measurements for cataract surgery: a comparison of ultrasound and optical biometric devices. International Ophthalmology. 2021; 41: 1521-30.
  8. Huang Z, Qi J, Cheng K, Liu S, Zhang K, Du Y, Lu Y, Zhu X. The relationships between lens diameter and ocular biometric parameters: an ultrasound biomicroscopy-based study. Frontiers in Medicine. 2023; 10: 145-61.
  9. El Enin MA, Mohamed AR, Fayad AE. Optical Biometry versus Ultrasonic Biometry in Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in High Axial Myopia. Al-Azhar International Medical Journal. 2023; 4(2): 20-27.
  10. Paul M. Comparison of applanation ultrasound biometry with optical biometry for intraocular lens power estimation in cataract surgery and their impact on prediction error. Kerala Journal of Ophthalmology. 2021; 33(2): 173-8.
  11. Rajurkar K, DaCruz R, Thakar M. Comparison of optical biometry and conventional acoustic biometry in the axial length measurement in silicone oil-filled eyes. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2022; 70(8): 2851.
  12. Pateras E, Karadimou D. Comparison of axial length measurements with the use of optical biometry (IOL Master 700) and ultrasound biometry (A‐scan 550 Sonomed). Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal. 2020; 13(4): 33-40.
  13. Mary E. Comparison of refractive outcome between biometry with applanation ultrasound and partial coherence interferometry (IOL master) in eyes undergoing phacoemulsification (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Ophthalmology, Joseph Eye Hospital, Tiruchirapalli). 2011.
  14. Kunavisarut P, Poopattanakul P, Intarated C, Pathanapitoon K. Accuracy and reliability of IOL master and A-scan immersion biometry in silicone oil-filled eyes. Eye. 2012; 26(10): 1344-8.
  15. Elsaadani AE, Badawi NM, Elterawy AZ. Optical biometry versus ultrasound biometry. The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2020; 81(5): 2088-92.
  16. Farahat HG, Ahmed KE, Marey HM, Fouad MA. Intraocular lens master optical biometry versus conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations in highly myopic eyes. Menoufia Medical Journal. 2017; 30(2): 485-97.
  17. Kutschan A, Wiegand W. Individual postoperative refraction after cataract surgery--a comparison of optical and acoustical biometry. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde. 2004; 221(9): 743-8.
  18. Gantenbein C, Lang H, Ruprecht K. First steps with the Zeiss IOL Master: A comparison between acoustic contact biometry and non-contact optical biometry. Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, 2003; 220(5): 309-314.
  19. El-Baha SM, Hemeida TS. Comparison of refractive outcome using intraoperative biometry and partial coherence interferometry in silicone oil-filled eyes. Retina. 2009; 29(1): 64-8.
Statistics
Article View: 4