Abstract
Purpose
Calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power for implantation during cataract surgery depends on ocular biometric measurements. The aim of this study was to characterise the normal range of intra- and interindividual variation in axial length (AL) and corneal power (K) when IOLMaster measurements were possible and to derive recommendations as to which outlying measurements merit verification before acceptance.
Methods
The Medisoft electronic patient database contains prospectively collected data conforming to the United Kingdom (UK) Cataract National Dataset on 55 567 cataract operations. From this AL and Kinformation on the 32 556 eyes (14 016 paired) of patients older than 25 years, without corneal pathology, history of intraocular surgery and who had all biometric measurements taken with the Zeiss IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec) were extracted. R 2.8.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) was used for statistical analysis.
Results
Mean age was 76.4 years and 62.0% were female. Mean (95% confidence interval) values for AL, mean Kand corneal astigmatism were 23.40 (21.27–26.59) mm, 43.90 (40.94–47.01) D and 1.04 (<2.50) D. Nearly all astigmatism was either with or against the rule. Differences between paired eyes were not statistically significant. 95% individuals had asymmetry of AL and mean K<0.70 mm and 0.92 D, respectively.
Conclusions
On the basis of approximation of the 95% CI above, it is suggested that AL, mean Kand keratometric astigmatism measurements outside the ranges 21.30–26.60 mm, 41.00–47.00 D and >2.50 D, respectively, and intraindividual asymmetry of AL >0.70 mm or mean K>0.90 D should be verified before acceptance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Cataract surgery is the most frequently performed operation in the developed world.1 Nearly all formulae used for calculation of intraocular lens (IOL) power depend on axial length (AL) measurements and require knowledge of corneal power (K).2, 3, 4, 5, 6 As a result, accurate and precise measurements are a critical part of preoperative assessment and biometric errors are an important source of ophthalmic error.7 To minimise such risk the United Kingdom (UK) Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) Cataract Surgery Guidelines contain advice as to which outlying biometric measurements merit confirmation.8 Stating that 96% of AL fall within the range 21.0–25.5 mm and that 98% K-readings lie between 40 and 48 D, the guidelines recommend measurements outside this range should be rechecked. Similarly, the same guidelines suggest that an interocular difference in K of >1.00 D or an AL disparity of >0.3 mm should only be accepted after verification, a recommendation similar to that of Holladay.2
Although these guidelines are potentially of very great use, their recommendations are derived from analysis of studies performed in other countries and have not been specifically validated as appropriate for the UK population. The principle aim of this analysis was to address this uncertainty by determining the normal range of biometric variation in the UK cataract surgery population, so enabling the validity of the RCOphth biometry guidelines to be assessed. The secondary goal of this study was to compare biometric measurements between fellow eyes.
Materials and methods
The UK Cataract National Dataset (CND) Electronic Multicentre Audit (EMA) has been described in detail before: it comprises prospectively collected information conforming to the UK CND on 55 567 cataract operations performed at 12 UK National Health Service hospital trusts by 406 surgeons between November 2001 and July 2006.9
For reasons of confidentially patients were not originally identified in this database by a unique identifier meaning that paired eyes were not matched. To overcome this limitation, the database was imported into MatLab r2007a (The MathWorks Inc, Natick, MA, USA) and code written to identify eyes with common date of birth, sex, ethnic origin and trust and which had undergone the appropriate order and combination of first and second and left and right eyes. When the free-text field listing the medications used by each potential pair of eyes were compared, there was near perfect agreement of drug names, spellings, order and doses, confirming the validity of this seven-step approach and these combinations were accepted as pairs. In five instances, three eyes appeared to match, so all these eyes were excluded from the paired analysis.
Twelve different keratometers and 17 AL measuring devices were used in the CND EMA. 98% of keratometry measurements were recorded using automated devices with the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, UK) being used in 67.9% of instances. Similarly, the IOLMaster was the device most often used to determine AL and used in 66.0% of cases.
Uniquely, the IOLMaster was the only instrument in this study that used an optical technique, partial coherence interferometry (PCI), to determine AL. Compared with acoustic biometry with a standard 10 MHz ultrasound probe, PCI AL measurements have greater precision (20 μm10 vs 120 μm11, 12), are negligibly affected by velocity assumptions13 and consistently measured along the visual axis.14 In addition, applanation ultrasound measurements are further affected by an inevitable but variable amount of corneal indentation.15 Given these limitations of ultrasonic AL measurement in general and the specific problem that the type of ultrasound probe (immersion or applanation) was not recorded in the CND EMA, the decision was made to study only those eyes which had all biometric measurements recorded using the IOLMaster.
Data eyes from patients older than 25 years without corneal pathology or a history of intraocular surgery and who had both AL and K measurements with the IOLMaster were identified and their age, past ophthalmic history, AL, maximum and minimum K (Kmax and Kmin, respectively) were extracted for inclusion in the present analysis. Mean K (Kmean) was defined as (Kmax+Kmin)/2 and keratometric astigmatism (Kdelta) as Kmax−Kmin.
For analysis of AL, K and astigmatism in the entire study population and to compare the sexes, all unpaired eyes were included, but, to avoid correlation bias, only one eye was included from each pair. The paired eye included was selected at random. The subset of matched eyes was used to contrast first and second and left and right eyes using relative differences, so permitting negative values. In addition, asymmetry between paired eyes was calculated in absolute terms using the modulus of the above differences without regard to sign.
Astigmatism was analysed using power vectors.16 In this system
and
J0 describes the difference in diopteric power between horizontal and vertical axes and is positive when astigmatism is with-the-rule (vertical K steeper) and negative when it is against-the-rule (horizontal K steeper). J45 characterises oblique astigmatism being positive if the axis of negative cylinder axis is closer to 45° than 135° and positive if closer to 135° than 45°.
R 2.8.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing) statistical software was used.17 Biometric parameters are not normally distributed so the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was used for statistical comparison. As described, three comparisons were made on the dataset including one eye of each patient (AL, Kmean and Kdelta between males and females) and six analyses were performed on the subset of paired eyes (AL, Kmean and Kdelta between first and second eyes and between left and right eyes). To account for this, a Bonferroni correction was made to the threshold of statistical significance reduced from P<0.05 to <0.016 and <0.0083, respectively. Linear regression analysis was used to characterise the change of biometric parameters with age.
Results
A total of 32 556 eyes (58.6%) of 25 548 patients, including 7008 pairs of the 55 567 eyes in the UK CND EMA database met the inclusion criteria. Thus, data from 25 548 unpaired eyes were analysed to determine the normal range of biometric variation, the study's primary objective, and information from 14 016 paired eyes of 7008 subjects used to investigate biometric asymmetry, the study's secondary objective.
Mean patient age was 76.4 (standard deviation (SD) 9.8, range 25–104, median 78.0) years. Patients were 37.8% male, 62.0% female and 0.2% unclassified. 97.3% of patients who had IOLMaster keratometry measurements also had AL measured by IOLMaster.
In Figure 1 the relationship between AL and mean K in the study population and the distribution of each parameter against age is plotted. Table 1 lists the median, mean SD 50% and 95% and overall distribution ranges for AL, Kmean and Kdelta in the whole study population and male and female subgroups. Similar information describing the subset of paired eyes and the differences between first and second and left and right eyes is listed in Table 2.
This study found that 92.1% of eyes had AL measurements between 21.0 and 25.5 mm, these limits being equal to 1.5 and 93.6 centiles and 99.0% of eyes had K values between 40 and 48 D, the values being equivalent to the 0.5 and 99.5 centiles. A total of 2.8% eyes had an interocular difference in K >1 D and 82.5% subjects had AL asymmetry of ⩽0.3 mm.
As shown in Figure 1, AL moderately correlated with Kmean and was described by the relationship
Although AL was shorter and Kmean steeper in older than younger patients, these correlations were weak and not significant. Specifically,
and
In Figure 2, the distribution of axis and power of keratometric astigmatism are shown. There was no correlation between either J0 or J45 and age in either right or left eyes.
Discussion
As detailed in Tables 1 and 2, the absolute values of and interocular differences in AL and K are similar to those reported earlier (Table 3).26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 That there were no significant differences between left and right eyes is not unexpected. The finding that males had longer AL and flatter Kmean perhaps reflects the difference in stature between the sexes.34 Although statistically significant, the very small mean difference (−0.03 mm) in AL between second and first eyes is clinically irrelevant.
The 95% biometry limits found here, and so the definition of abnormality, differ from the current recommendations in the RCOphth Cataract Surgery Guidelines. Whereas those guidelines suggest that 96% of AL lie between 21.0 and 25.5 mm and that 98% of eyes have curvature between 40 and 48 D, this study found that 95% AL were between AL 21.27 and 26.59 mm and 95% Kmean between 40.94 and 47.01 D. Likewise, when the RCOphth guidelines advise that >0.3 mm of AL or >1 D of Kmean asymmetry is abnormal in this analysis, the 95% limits for these parameters were <0.70 mm and 0.92 D, respectively.
Although most of these differences are relatively small, compared with the Guideline's suggestion that ⩾0.3 mm AL asymmetry is abnormal, the finding here of a mean (±SD) difference of 0.21±0.35 mm is striking. Nonetheless, this discrepancy is consistent with the results of others: Hoffer25 described intraindividual AL asymmetry of 0.34 (±0.70) mm, Jivrajka found 24% of cataract surgery patients to have AL differences >0.3 mm,26 Wickremasinghe et al27measured AL asymmetry of 0.3 (±0.8) mm in Mongolians older than 70 years and Jabbour et al28 described that the SD of AL between fellow eyes was ±0.24 mm.
Although these results do suggest that it would be appropriate to update the RCOphth cataract surgery guidelines, deciding exactly what measurement ranges can be considered normal is complicated by the fact that the parameters are not normally distributed and outlying measurements are common. However, if rounded values approximating to the 95% limits found here were used, requiring 1 in 20 measurements to be checked, then AL measurements outside the range 21.30–26.60 mm and Kmean values <41.00 D or >47.00 D should be repeated. Similarly, measurements >0.9 D Kmean or >0.70 mm of AL asymmetry should be verified and keratometric astigmatism >2.50 D should be rechecked (Box 1).
For AL, the range of acceptable measurement is significantly greater than currently suggested. It is counterintuitive to think that this increased tolerance will improve biometry outcomes. The apparent paradox can be resolved by the high accuracy and precision of the IOLMaster's non-contact optical measurement technique and the fact that values returned by the instrument are themselves the mean of at least 3 K and 5 AL measurements. Indeed, it is possible that increasing the acceptable measurement range might improve patient outcomes by eliminating some of the confusion that can result when multiple biometric reports exist for a single patient.
In contrast to cross-sectional studies of the general population, mostly reporting an increase in Kmean, reduction in AL, negative shift in J0 or similar refractive changes,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36 this study did not find any significant age-related changes. However, being cross-sectional and only including cataractous eyes, the influence of cohort effects and selection bias cannot be excluded, so not much weight can be placed on this.
The validity of these results comes largely from the very large number of eyes included and the fact they were recruited prospectively. Some caution is required, however, because of the uncertain effects of selection bias and, despite the seemingly near perfect pairing process, the fact that fellow eyes were not originally identified in the database so some uncertainty surrounds this process.
Selection bias cannot be quantified but might arise and confound comparison of these results with studies using ultrasound because the IOLMaster is unable to measure AL in all subjects. This is because patient cooperation is required both to position on the IOLMaster and to fixate on an internal target whereas ultrasound AL measurement is possible even in anaesthetised patients. In addition, because the IOLMaster uses an optical double pass measurement technique, media opacities, particularly those that scatter light such as posterior subcapsular cataracts, can render measurement impossible, a factor that does not affect ultrasonic measurements.
Nonetheless, it is believed that this analysis has established the normal range of optical biometric variation in the UK cataract surgery population and that it should enable updated recommendations for measurement verification to be made. Indeed, as the biometric characteristics of the UK cataract surgery population are similar to those of other western populations, (Table 3) it is likely that these recommendations are widely applicable. It is hoped that this information will be of interest to all cataract surgeons.
References
Apple DJ, Peng Q, Visessook N, Werner L, Pandey SK, Escobar-Gomez M et al. Surgical prevention of posterior capsule opacification. Part 1: progress in eliminating this complication of cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26 (2): 180–187.
Holladay JT, Prager TC, Chandler TY, Musgrove KH, Lewis JW, Ruiz RS . A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg 1988; 14 (1): 17–24.
Hoffer KJ . The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19 (6): 700–712.
Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC . Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 1990; 16 (3): 333–340.
Hoffer KJ . Errata in printed Hoffer Q formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 2–3.
Sanders DR, Retzlaff J, Kraff MC . Comparison of the SRK II formula and other second generation formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 1988; 14 (2): 136–141.
Simon JW, Ngo Y, Khan S, Strogatz D . Surgical confusions in ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol 2007; 125 (11): 1515–1522.
Royal College of Ophthalmologists. Cataract surgery guidelines 2004, updated 2007. http://www.rcophth.ac.uk/docs/publications/published-guidelines/FinalVersionGuidelinesApril2007Updated.pdf (accessed 18 July 2009).
Jaycock P, Johnston RL, Taylor H, Adams M, Tole DM, Galloway P et al. The Cataract National Dataset electronic multi-centre audit of 55 567 operations: updating benchmark standards of care in the United Kingdom and internationally. Eye 2009; 23 (1): 38–49.
Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, Rainer G, Vass C, Hitzenberger CK et al. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1998; 126 (4): 524–534.
Binkhorst RD . The accuracy of ultrasonic measurement of the axial length of the eye. Ophthalmic Surg 1981; 12 (5): 363–365.
Schachar RA, Levy NS, Bonney RC . Accuracy of intraocular lens powers calculated from A-scan biometry with the echo-oculometer. Ophthalmic Surg 1980; 11 (12): 856–858.
Norrby S . Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34 (3): 368–376.
Sheng H, Bottjer CA, Bullimore MA . Ocular component measurement using the Zeiss IOLMaster. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81 (1): 27–34.
Snead MP, Rubinstein MP, Lea SH, Haworth SM . Calculated versus A-scan result for axial length using different types of ultrasound probe tip. Eye 1990; 4 (Pt 5): 718–722.
Thibos LN, Horner D . Power vector analysis of the optical outcome of refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27 (1): 80–85.
R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing version 2.8.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org, 2008.
Jivrajka R, Shammas MC, Boenzi T, Swearingen M, Shammas HJ . Variability of axial length, anterior chamber depth, and lens thickness in the cataractous eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34 (2): 289–294.
Norrby S, Lydahl E, Koranyi G, Taube M . Comparison of 2 A-scans. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003; 29: 95–99.
Hasemeyer S, Hugger P, Jonas JB . Preoperative biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence laser interferometry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003; 241 (3): 251–252.
Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS . Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28 (2): 239–242.
Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B . Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000; 238: 765–773.
Olsen T, Corydon L, Gimbel H . Intraocular lens power calculation with an improved anterior chamber depth prediction algorithm. J Cataract Refract Surg 1995; 21 (3): 313–319.
Shammas HJ . A-scan biometry of 1000 cataractous eyes. Doc Ophthalmol Proc Ser 1987; 48: 57–63.
Hoffer KJ . Biometry of 7,500 cataractous eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 1980; 90 (3): 360–368.
Rajan MS, Bunce C, Tuft S . Interocular axial length difference and age-related cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34 (1): 76–79.
Wickremasinghe S, Foster PJ, Uranchimeg D, Lee PS, Devereux JG, Alsbirk PH et al. Ocular biometry and refraction in Mongolian adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45 (3): 776–783.
Jabbour J, Irwig L, Macaskill P, Hennessy MP . Intraocular lens power in bilateral cataract surgery: whether adjusting for error of predicted refraction in the first eye improves prediction in the second eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006; 32 (12): 2091–2097.
Pardhan S, Beesley J . Measurement of corneal curvature in young and older normal subjects. J Refract Surg 1999; 15 (4): 469–474.
Ferrer-Blasco T, Gonzalez-Meijome JM, Montes-Mico R . Age-related changes in the human visual system and prevalence of refractive conditions in patients attending an eye clinic. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008; 34 (3): 424–432.
Ninn-Pedersen K . Relationships between preoperative astigmatism and corneal optical power, axial length, intraocular pressure, gender, and patient age. J Refract Surg 1996; 12 (4): 472–482.
Wong TY, Foster PJ, Ng TP, Tielsch JM, Johnson GJ, Seah SK . Variations in ocular biometry in an adult Chinese population in Singapore: the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42 (1): 73–80.
Lee KE, Klein BEK, Klein R . Changes in refractive error over a 5-year interval in the Beaver Dam eye study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1990; 40: 1645–1649.
Wong TY, Foster PJ, Johnson GJ, Klein BE, Seah SK . The relationship between ocular dimensions and refraction with adult stature: the Tanjong Pagar Survey. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42 (6): 1237–1242.
Gudmundsdottir E, Arnarsson A, Jonasson F . Five-year refractive changes in an adult population. Ophthalmology 2005; 112: 672–677.
Guzowski M, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, Rose KA, Mitchell P . Five-year refractive changes in an older population. Ophthalmology 2003; 110: 1364–1370.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
RL Johnston is a Director of Medisoft Limited. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This work was presented at the 2008 United Kingdom and Ireland Society of Cataract Surgeons Annual Meeting (Brighton) and at the 2009 European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Winter Meeting (Rome)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knox Cartwright, N., Johnston, R., Jaycock, P. et al. The Cataract National Dataset electronic multicentre audit of 55 567 operations: when should IOLMaster biometric measurements be rechecked?. Eye 24, 894–900 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.196
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2009.196
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Global metrics on ocular biometry: representative averages and standard deviations across ten countries from four continents
Eye (2023)
-
The cost of laser refractive surgery and supplementary sulcus lens implantation for pseudophakic ametropia and astigmatism, the leeds experience
Eye (2023)
-
Interocular biometric parameters comparison measured with swept-source technology
International Ophthalmology (2022)
-
The highs and lows of Medisoft as an audit tool: lessons from a 5-year upper eyelid ptosis audit
Eye (2021)
-
Accuracy of intraocular lens calculations based on fellow-eye biometry for phacovitrectomy for macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachments
Eye (2019)