Double peak axial length measurement signal in cataract patients with epiretinal membrane

• Published in: International ophthalmology Vol. 43; no. 4; pp. 1337 - 1343
• Main Authors: Chonpimai, Pratuangsri, Chirapapaisan, Chareenun, Srivannaboon, Sabong, Loket, Siriwan, Nujoi, Waree, Dongngam, Somthin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.04.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Biometry; Cataract - diagnosis; Cataract Extraction; Cataracts; Cross-Sectional Studies; Epiretinal Membrane - surgery; Errors; Eye surgery; Female; Humans; Intraocular lenses; Lens Implantation, Intraocular; Lenses, Intraocular; Male; Mathematical analysis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Membranes; Middle Aged; Ophthalmology; Original Paper; Prospective Studies; Refraction, Ocular; Surgery; Cataract with epiretinal membrane; Axial length measurement; Double peak signal; Intraocular lens power
• ISSN: 1573-2630; 0165-5701; 1573-2630
• DOI: 10.1007/s10792-022-02531-y

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of axial length (AL) measurement for intraocular lens (IOL) calculation in patients with cataract and epiretinal membrane (ERM). Methods This prospective, cross-sectional study was performed in cataract patients with ERM. All subjects were sent for standard optical biometry, prepared for cataract surgery. Signals of AL measurement were detected as double peaks and recorded as AL1 (first peak), and AL2 (second peak). The IOL power was calculated from AL1 and AL2, and reported as IOL1 and IOL2. The IOL2 was chosen for cataract surgery in all cases. Postoperative predictive errors were compared between IOL1 and IOL2. Results Thirty-seven eyes from 37 patients were included. Mean AL1 was significantly shorter than AL2 (23.13 ± 1.28 vs. 23.60 ± 1.34 mm, p  < 0.001), resulting in higher power of IOL1 than IOL2 (mean difference was 1.53 ± 0.96 diopters, p  < 0.001). At 3-months post-operation, twenty-nine eyes (78.4%) (95% CI 62.8%–88.6%) showed refractive error within ± 0.5 diopter and all eyes were within ± 1.0 diopter. Postoperative predictive errors including mean arithmetic error (ME) and mean absolute error (MAE) of IOL2 were significantly lower than those of IOL1 (ME: IOL1 vs. IOL2, −0.94 ± 0.91 vs. 0.08 ± 0.51; MAE: 0.97 ± 0.88 vs. 0.39 ± 0.33 diopter, all p  < 0.001). Conclusions AL measurement in ERM can be detected as a double peak signal during biometric measurement. The IOL power calculated from the first and second peak signals is significantly different. However, the IOL power derived from the second peak signal provides better refractive outcomes. The results suggest that the second peak signal represents an accurate AL measurement.