# Comparing the postoperative refractive predictability of Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500 after a multifocal intraocular lens implantation

## TL;DR

This study compares the accuracy of two devices, Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500, in predicting postoperative vision outcomes after multifocal lens implantation.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of refractive predictability using different biometric measurements from two devices in multifocal intraocular lens implantation.

## Key findings

- Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 500 showed significant differences in keratometry measurements.
- The anterior chamber depth measurements were equally accurate between the two devices.
- Using IOLMaster 500 for anterior chamber depth resulted in smaller prediction differences.

## Abstract

To compare the postoperative refractive predictability of IOLMaster 500 and
Pentacam HR on the basis of keratometry and anterior chamber depth values in
eyes with an indication for multifocal intraocular lens (IOL)
implantation.

This was a retrospective study conducted on 118 eyes treated with
phacoemulsification and multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Only the
eyes that achieved emmetropia in the dynamic refraction performed on
postoperative day 30 were included. Haigis’ formula was used in each case to
calculate the intraocular lens power, and the intraocular lens with the
target refraction closest to emmetropia was implanted. Four lens calculation
scenarios were tested by combining keratometry and anterior chamber depth
measurements obtained using the two devices.

IOLMaster 500 and Pentacam HR differed with regard to mean keratometry (∆
0.07 ± 0.03 D; p=0.0065) and anterior chamber depth (∆ 0.08 ±
0.01 mm; p<0.001). In the analysis of covariance, the following
differences were obtained using the Haigis’ formula when confronted with the
biometric values obtained by inserting keratometry and anterior chamber
depth values, respectively: Penta/IOL x IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03;
p<0.0001); Penta/Penta × IOL/Penta (0.13 ± 0.03;
p<0.0001); Penta/IOL × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.001);
Penta/ Penta × IOL/IOL (0.11 ± 0.03; p=0.002); IOL/IOL
× IOL/Penta (0.02 ± 0.03; p=0.865); and Penta/IOL ×
Penta/Penta (0.002 ± 0.03; p=0.99). The difference was smaller when
measuring the anterior chamber depth using the IOLMaster 500, regardless of
which device was used to measure keratometry.

Pentacam HR significantly differed from IOLMaster 500 when calculating
keratometry. As regards the anterior chamber depth, the two devices were
equally accurate.