Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficiency and measurements agreement between swept-source OCT and low-coherence interferometry biometry systems

  • Cataract
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare and evaluate the agreement between the measurements obtained with a swept-source optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based biometer, the IOLMaster® 700 (IOLM), and those obtained by an optical biometer based on optical low-coherence interferometry (OLCI), the Aladdin (ALD); To evaluate the ability to perform biometric measurements in those eyes with transparency alterations.

Methods

Fifty-five eyes of 55 subjects were included in this study. Axial length (AL), corneal power (K, in diopters) and its astigmatism, anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), and lens thickness (LT) measures were obtained within both biometers, Zeiss IOLMaster 700 and Topcon Aladdin. Results were analyzed and compared using the Student’s paired samples t-test, Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Mean age was 73.12 ± 2.63 (62–89 years). The IOLM mean AL, K, and LT values did not show a statistically significant difference from ALD values and showed excellent agreement and correlation (ICC = 1.000, 0.970, 0.952). IOLM measured a lower mean ACD (−0.036 mm) and higher CCT measurements (9.296 μm). Those results were statistically different (p < 0.001 in both cases) but showed an excellent correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.994, 0.938). IOLM was able to obtain measures from all the eyes examined, while ALD did not measure in two cases with dense nuclear cataract. ALD showed spherical K measures in 7.27% of cases.

Conclusion

Overall a quite good agreement between IOLM and ALD was found. ALD showed spherical keratometry measures in 7.27% of cases. IOLMaster 700 was more effective in obtaining AL measurements in eyes with dense cataracts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rabsilber TM, Jepsen C, Auffarth GU et al (2010) Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 36(2):230–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M (2014) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(4):593–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mandal P, Berrow EJ, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS, Uthoff D, Holland D et al (2014) Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 98(2):256–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG (2015) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol. Published Online First: 16 December 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779

  5. Huang J, Savini G, Wu F, Yu X, Yang J, Yu A et al (2015) Repeatability and reproducibility of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence interferometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(10):2233–2241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S (2015) Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(10):2224–2232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G, Huang J (2016) Multicenter study of optical low-coherence interferometry and partial-coherence interferometry optical biometers with patients from the United States and China. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(1):62–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kurian M, Negalur N, Das S, Puttaiah NK, Haria D, J TS et al (2016) Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(4):577–581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Li J, Chen H, Savini G, Lu W, Yu X, Bao F et al (2016) Measurement agreement between a new biometer based on partial coherence interferometry and a validated biometer based on optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(1):68–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sabatino F, Findl O, Maurino V (2016) Comparative analysis of optical biometers. J Cataract Refract Surg 42(5):685–693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Findl O (2005) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 16(1):61–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B (2000) Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 238(9):765–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL et al (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 111(6):831–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2011) Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31(4):330–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Olsen T (1992) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 18(2):125–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sanders DR, Retzlaff JA, Kraff MC, Gimbel HV, Raanan MG (1990) Comparison of the SRK/T formula and other theoretical and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 16(3):341–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM, Johnston RL (2011) Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, or SRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataract surgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(1):63–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eom Y, Kang SY, Song JS, Kim YY, Kim HM (2014) Comparison of Hoffer Q and Haigis formulae for intraocular lens power calculation according to the anterior chamber depth in short eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 157(4):818.e2–824.e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Ciencias Visuales, INCIVI, c\ Ana Teresa, 24 - 28023, Madrid, Spain

    Jorge A. Calvo-Sanz

  2. Ophthalmologist, Instituto de Ciencias Visuales, INCIVI, Madrid, Spain

    Alejandro Portero-Benito & Alfonso Arias-Puente

Authors
  1. Jorge A. Calvo-Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejandro Portero-Benito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alfonso Arias-Puente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge A. Calvo-Sanz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (INCIVI – Madrid Spain) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calvo-Sanz, J.A., Portero-Benito, A. & Arias-Puente, A. Efficiency and measurements agreement between swept-source OCT and low-coherence interferometry biometry systems. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 256, 559–566 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3909-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-018-3909-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation