Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov 5;14(1):26762.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-77572-7.

Short-term variability in ocular biometry and the impact of preoperative dry eye

Affiliations

Short-term variability in ocular biometry and the impact of preoperative dry eye

Sanghyuk Ahn et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the short-term variability of ocular biometric measurements and to analyze the factors associated with high variability of biometric values in patients with cataract. This retrospective study included 60 eyes of 60 patients who underwent ocular biometry twice with the IOLMaster 700 (March to November 2023). Ocular surface parameters included tear film break-up time (TBUT), corneal and conjunctival staining scores (CSS/ConSS). Refractive surprise was defined as a mean absolute error exceeding 0.5 diopter (D). Participants included 22 men and 38 women with a mean age of 70.6 ± 8.4 years. The variability of mean keratometric (K) values and astigmatism showed notable variability compared to axial length (mean K: 0.18 ± 0.17D, astigmatism: 0.21 ± 0.26D, axial length: 0.01 ± 0.01 mm). A decreased TBUT and increased CSS were significantly associated with high variability (≥ 0.25D) of mean K (p = 0.040/0.008). The high K variability group (≥ 0.25D) revealed a significantly higher incidence of refractive surprise (> 0.5D) compared with the low K variability group (< 0.25D) (45.5%/17.9%, p = 0.037). Preoperative lower TBUT and higher CSS influenced the variability of K values in ocular biometry and may be related with postoperative refractive surprise due to erroneous K values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Percentage of cases in which preoperative intraocular lens power selection was changed because of variability between two repetitive ocular biometric measurements. D diopters.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparative analysis of dry eye severity between the group in which the IOL power was changed and the group in which it was kept the same. Error bars represent the standard deviation of the mean. *p < 0.05. IOL intraocular lens, TBUT tear film break-up time, CSS corneal staining score (SICCA score), ConSS conjunctival staining score (Oxford scheme), MGD meibomian gland dysfunction.

References

    1. Wang, W., Yan, W., Müller, A. & He, M. A global view on output and outcomes of cataract surgery with national indices of socioeconomic development. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci.58, 3669–3676. 10.1167/iovs.17-21489 (2017). - PubMed
    1. Davis, G. The evolution of cataract surgery. Mo. Med.113, 58–62 (2016). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Olsen, T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: A review. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand.85, 472–485. 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00879.x (2007). - PubMed
    1. Cione, F. et al. A no-history multi-formula approach to improve the IOL power calculation after laser refractive surgery: Preliminary results. J. Clin. Med.12, 2890. 10.3390/jcm12082890 (2023). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Akman, A., Asena, L. & Güngör, S. G. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br. J. Ophthalmol.100, 1201–1205. 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779 (2015). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources