Ocular anatomic changes for different accommodative demands using swept-source optical coherence tomography: a pilot study

  • José J. Esteve-TaboadaEmail author
  • Teresa Ferrer-Blasco
  • Miguel A. Aloy
  • José E. Adsuara
  • Pablo Cerdá-Durán
  • Petar Mimica
  • Robert Montés-Micó



The purpose of our study was to assess the changes in ocular parameters for different accommodative demands using a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT).


Seven subjects were included in this pilot study, and only one eye per participant was analyzed. Each eye was measured six times with the optical biometer IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). As this instrument is not able to change the vergence of the stimulus, to enable measurements at different accommodative states, a tilted first-surface mirror attached to the optical biometer was used to place the fixation stimulus at different vergences. Measurements were taken on the right eye of the subject while the left eye was looking through the mirror. Central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL), white-to-white (WTW) distance and keratometric readings were evaluated for three different accommodative states: 0.0 diopters (D), 1.5 D, and 3.0 D.


No statistically significant differences were found for CCT, AL, WTW, K1 and K2 between the three accommodative states. As expected, changing the accommodative condition did not change CCT, AL, WTW, and keratometric outcomes. Nevertheless, statistically significant differences between the accommodative states were found for ACD and LT measurements. In addition, variations in ACD correlated linearly with variations in LT (R2 ≥ 0.99) when changing the vergence of the optotype.


A practical methodology to assess the changes in ocular parameters for different accommodative demands using the IOLMaster 700 based on SS-OCT has been described. Statistically significant changes that have been found that agree well with previous reports.


Optical coherence tomography Accommodation Anterior chamber 



The Spanish Government provided financial support in the form of research grant funding (Explora project, reference SAF2013–49284-EXP). The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

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 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.

Supplementary material

417_2017_3801_MOESM1_ESM.docx (11 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 10 kb)


  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 27:665–671CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 41:2224–2232CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 42:76–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.
    Lehman BM, Berntsen DA, Bailey MD, Zadnik K (2009) Validation of OCT-based crystalline lens thickness measurements in children. Optometry and vision science: official publication of the American Academy of Optometry 86:181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baikoff G, Lutun E, Ferraz C, Wei J (2004) Static and dynamic analysis of the anterior segment with optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:1843–1850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsorbatzoglou A, Nemeth G, Szell N, Biro Z, Berta A (2007) Anterior segment changes with age and during accommodation measured with partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1597–1601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leng L, Yuan Y, Chen Q, Shen M, Ma Q, Lin B et al (2014) Biometry of anterior segment of human eye on both horizontal and vertical meridians during accommodation imaged with extended scan depth optical coherence tomography. PLoS One 9:e104775CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richdale K, Bullimore MA, Zadnik K (2008) Lens thickness with age and accommodation by optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 28:441–447CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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 45:1752–1757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan WY (1982) Sampling distributions and robustness of t, F and variance-ratio in two samples and ANOVA models with respect to departure from normality. Communication in statistics – Theory and Methods 11:486–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Box GEP (1965) Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems. II: effects of inequality of variance and of correlation between errors in the two-way classification. Ann Math Stat 25:484–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charman WN (2008) The eye in focus: accommodation and presbyopia. Clin Exp Optom 91:207–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neri A, Ruggeri M, Protti A, Leaci R, Gandolfi SA, Macaluso C (2015) Dynamic imaging of accommodation by swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:501–510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piñero DP (2015) Technologies for anatomical and geometric characterization of the corneal structure and anterior segment: a review. Semin Ophthalmol 30:161–170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramos JL, Li Y, Huang D (2009) Clinical and research applications of anterior segment optical coherence tomography—a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 37:81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bizheva K, Haines L, Mason E, MacLellan B, Tan B, Hileeto D, Sorbara L (2016) In vivo imaging and morphometry of the human pre-Descemet's layer and endothelium with ultrahigh-resolution optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 57(1):2782–2787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 41:981–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bayramlar H, Sadigov F, Yildirim A (2013) Effect of accommodation on corneal topography. Cornea 32:1251–1254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Woodman EC, Read SA, Collins MJ (2012) Axial length and choroidal thickness changes accompanying prolonged accommodation in myopes and emmetropes. Vis Res 72(1):34–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhong J, Tao A, Xu Z, Jiang H, Shao Y, Zhang H, Liu C, Wang J (2014) Whole eye axial biometry during accommodation using ultra-long scan depth optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol 157:1064–1069CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 83:657–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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 91:360–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laughton DS, Sheppard AL, Davies LN (2016) A longitudinal study of accommodative changes in biometry during incipient presbyopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36:33–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ramasubramanian V, Glasser A (2015) Objective measurement of accommodative biometric changes using ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:511–526CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ramasubramanian V, Glasser A (2015) Prediction of accommodative optical response in prepresbyopic subjects using ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:964–980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farouk MM, Naito T, Shinomiya K, Eguchi H, Sayed KM, Nagasawa T, Katome T, Mitamura Y (2015) Optical coherence tomography reveals new insights into the accommodation mechanism. J Ophthalmol 2015:510459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aloy MA, Adsuara JE, Cerdá-Durán P, Obergaulinger M, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Ferrer-Blasco T, Montés-Micó R (2017) PLOS One (accepted for publication)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Optics and Optometry and Visual ScienceUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain
  2. 2.Department of Astronomy and AstrophysicsUniversity of ValenciaBurjassotSpain

Personalised recommendations