Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 303–310 | Cite as

Ocular biometric changes with different accommodative stimuli using swept-source optical coherence tomography

  • Teresa Ferrer-Blasco
  • José J. Esteve-TaboadaEmail author
  • Daniel Monsálvez-Romín
  • Miguel A. Aloy
  • José E. Adsuara
  • Pablo Cerdá-Durán
  • Robert Montés-Micó
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate ocular biometric changes with different accommodative stimuli using a new swept-source optical biometer.

Methods

Only the right eye was analyzed. Each subject was measured six times with the IOLMaster 700 swept-source optical biometer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) with the subject looking at the stimulus shown by the instrument and with the subject looking at a target placed outside the instrument at 0D of vergence. Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW), and keratometry readings (K1 and K2) were evaluated in both cases. To assess if the changes found may affect the intraocular (IOL) power calculation for surgical applications, we have applied some formulae, using the software provided by the optical biometer manufacturer, to the ocular parameters found in both situations for three different types of IOLs.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found for AL, CCT, WTW, K1 and K2 between the subject looking at the stimulus of the biometer and looking at the outside target at 0D of vergence (p > 0.05). However, the measurement of ACD revealed a statistically significant reduction of 20 microns (p = 0.03) and, on the contrary, LT increased significantly 30 microns (p = 0.02). ACD and LT changes were highly correlated (R2 = 0.91). As for the IOL power calculation, in all cases, the mean change was lower than 0.25 D both for IOL power selection and residual refraction.

Conclusions

Although ACD and LT change significantly with different accommodative stimuli measured by swept-source optical biometry, these changes are not clinically relevant.

Keywords

Ocular biometry Accommodation Cataract Optical biometer 

Notes

Funding

Authors acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Government Grant Explora (SAF2013-49284-EXP) and a “Formación de Profesorado Universitario” Grant (FPU13/05332, Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte) awarded to Daniel Monsálvez-Romín.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Montés-Micó R, Carones F, Buttacchio A, Ferrer-Blasco T, Madrid-Costa D (2011) Comparison of immersion ultrasound, partial coherence interferometry, and low coherence reflectometry for ocular biometry in cataract patients. J Refract Surg 27:665–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 41:2224–2232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, Haigis W, Sekundo W, Schütze J, Büehren T (2016) Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1201–1205Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. Ophthal Physiol Opt 31:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Montés-Micó R, Alió J, Muñoz G, Charman W (2004) Temporal changes in optical quality of air-tear film interface at anterior cornea after blink. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:1752–1757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sisó-Fuertes I, Domínguez-Vicent A, del Águila-Carrasco A, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2015) Corneal changes with accommodation using dual Scheimpflug photography. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:981–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ostrin L, Kasthurirangan S, Win-Hall D, Glasser A (2006) Simultaneous measurements of refraction and A-scan biometry during accommodation in humans. Optom Vis Sci 83:657–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bolz M, Prinz A, Drexler W, Findl O (2007) Linear relationship of refractive and biometric lenticular changes during accommodation in emmetropic and myopic eyes. Br J Ophthalmol 91:360–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Zadnik K (2008) Lens thickness with age and accommodation by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 28:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao HJ, Huang CJ, Shih PJ, Wang IJ, Yen JY. (2015) A method of measuring corneal Young’s modulus. In: 7th WACBE world congress on bioengineering. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 52, pp 47–50Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamilton KE, Pye DC (2008) Young’s modulus in normal corneas and the effect on applanation tonometry. Optom Vis Sci 85:445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones IL, Warner M, Stevens JD (1992) Mathematical modelling of the elastic properties of retina: a determination of Young’s modulus. Eye (London) 6:556–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Optics and Optometry and Vision SciencesUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain
  2. 2.Department of Astronomy and AstrophysicsUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain

Personalised recommendations