Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the measurements of a novel optical biometry: Nidek AL-Scan with Sirius and a ultrasound biometry

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate the accuracy of the measurements of Nidek AL-Scan by comparing with Sirius (CSO, Florence, Italy), a corneal tomography which also employs the Scheimpflug principle, and a commonly used device, ultrasound biometry (UB) (Aviso A/B, Quantel Medical, MT, USA). Right eyes of 85 healthy volunteers (58 women 27 men) with a mean age of 39.24 ± 14.37 years (range 15–68) were enrolled into this comparative prospective study. Average K 2.4, average K 3.3, CCT (central corneal thickness), WTW (white to white distance), ACD (anterior chamber depth) and AL (axial length) were obtained from the AL-Scan and compared with average SimK, CCT, WTW (horizontal anterior chamber diameter) and ACD obtained from Sirius and also compared with ACD and AL obtained from UB. The statistically significant difference was found between all of the measurements (p < 0.001) except the average keratometry values (K2.4, K3.3, SimK) (p = 0.083). There was a perfect correlation between keratometry, CCT and AL measurements of the devices (ICC = 0.977, 0.954, 0.923, respectively) and there was a strong correlation between the WTW measurements of AL-Scan and Sirius (ICC = 0.865). While ACD parameter of AL-Scan and UB showed a perfect correlation (ICC = 0.977), there was a moderate correlation between AL-Scan and Sirius and also between UB and Sirius (ICC = 0.608 and 0.664, respectively). There was a high correlation between the all measurements, besides ACD, of AL-Scan and Sirius and they can be used interchangeably for average keratometry and WTW confidently. However, ACD and CCT have a broader 95 % LoA (−0.039 to 0.744 and −24.985 to 3.691, respectively). In addition, AL-Scan and UB were in good agreement regarding ACD, while differences in AL measurements of UB and AL-Scan were clinically important (95 % LoA = −0.091 to 0.703). Furthermore, UB and Sirius have a moderate agreement regarding ACD (95 % LoA = −0.047 to 0.680).

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flynn TH, Sharma DP, Bunce C, Wilkins MR (2015) Differential precision of corneal Pentacam HR measurements in early and advanced keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307201. [Epub ahead of print]

  2. Moghimi S, Ramezani F, He M, Coleman AL, Lin SC (2015) Comparison of anterior segment-optical coherence tomography parameters in Phacomorphic angle closure and acute angle closure eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(13):7611–7617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan TC, Biswas S, Yu M, Jhanji V (2015) Longitudinal evaluation of cornea with swept-source optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging before and after lasik. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(30):e1219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2387–2393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Suto C, Shimamura E, Watanabe I (2015) Comparison of 2 optical biometers and evaluation of the Camellin-Calossi intraocular lens formula for normal cataractous eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2366–2372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffer KJ (1994) The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:700–712 (errata; 20:677)

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aktas S, Aktas H, Tetikoglu M, Sagdk HM, Özcura F (2015) Refractive results using a new optical biometry device: comparison with ultrasound biometry data. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(48):e2169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sanders DR, Bernitsky DA, Harton PJ Jr, Rivera RR (2008) The Visian myopic implantable collamer lens does not significantly affect axial length measurement with the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 24(9):957–959

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Masoud M, Livny E, Bahar I (2015) Repeatability and intrasession reproducibility obtained by the Sirius anterior segment analysis system. Eye Contact Lens 41(2):107–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yağcı R, Kulak AE, Güler E, Tenlik A, Gürağaç FB, Hepşen İF (2015) Comparison of anterior segment measurements with a dual Scheimpflug Placido corneal topographer and a new partial coherence interferometer in keratoconic eyes. Cornea 34(9):1012–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Utine CA, Altin F, Cakir H et al (2009) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements taken with the Pentacam, Orbscan IIz and IOLMaster in myopic and emmetropic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 87:386–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dervişoğulları MS, Totan Y, Gürağaç B (2015) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements of Nidek AL-Scan and Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(2):85–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anayol MA, Güler E, Yağci R, Şekeroğlu MA, Ylmazoğlu M, Trhş H, Kulak AE, Ylmazbaş P (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and simulated keratometry using galilei, Pentacam, and Sirius devices. Cornea 33(6):582–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, Jorge J, Montés Micó R (2012) Central vault after phakic intraocular lens implantation: correlation with anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, spherical equivalent, and patient age. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(1):46–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Terzi E, Wang L, Kohnen T (2009) Accuracy of modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas in refractive lens exchange for high myopia and high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1181–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S (2014) Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(5):709–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey

    Çağatay Çağlar, Sücattin İlker Kocamış & Mustafa Durmuş

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey

    Emre Demir

Authors
  1. Çağatay Çağlar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sücattin İlker Kocamış
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emre Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mustafa Durmuş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Çağatay Çağlar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çağlar, Ç., Kocamış, S.İ., Demir, E. et al. Comparison of the measurements of a novel optical biometry: Nidek AL-Scan with Sirius and a ultrasound biometry. Int Ophthalmol 37, 491–498 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0284-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0284-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation