Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agreement of white-to-white measurements with swept-source OCT, Scheimpflug and color LED devices

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

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the interchangeability of different devices for measuring white-to-white (WTW) distance.

Methods

WTW distance was measured in 53 eyes of 53 patients using Anterion swept-source optical coherence topographer (SS-OCT), IOLMaster 700 SS-OCT, Pentacam HR Scheimpflug and Cassini color LED. Statistical analysis was done by means of the Friedman test and the post hoc Tukey test. The Bland–Altman analysis was applied to carry out pairwise comparisons with the average difference, 95% confidence interval of the average difference and limits of agreement 95% (LoA).

Results

WTW values obtained by the Anterion, IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR and Cassini were: 11.84 ± 0.41 mm, 11.96 ± 0.41 mm, 11.68 ± 0.38 mm and 12.65 ± 0.52 mm, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found in all pairwise comparison (p < 0.001). The lowest mean difference was found between the Anterion and IOLMaster 700 (− 0.11 mm) and the highest between the Pentacam HR and Cassini (− 0.96 mm). The widest LoA ranges were those that compared any device with the Cassini. LoA ranges when the other three devices were compared among them were similar: Anterion versus IOLMaster 700, Anterion versus Pentacam HR and IOLMaster versus Pentacam HR (about 0.2 mm).

Conclusions

Our results show that there were statistically significant differences in WTW measurement among the four devices, but under a clinical point of view, we believe that Anterion and IOLMaster 700 may be considered interchangeable and so Anterion and Pentacam HR, however, IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam HR may not and neither is Cassini with any of the other three devices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yoo Y, Whang W, Kim H, Joo C, Yoon G (2019) Preoperative biometric measurements with anterior segment optical coherence tomography and prediction of postoperative intraocular lens position. Medicine (Baltimore) 98:e18026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ramalho MR, Vaz FT, Pedrosa C et al (2016) 3rd generation formulas and intraocular lens calculation with IOLMaster®. Refractive results in 101 eyes and relationship with axial length. Vision Pan-America Pan-American J Ophthalmol 15:7–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fernandes P, González-Méijome JM, Madrid-Costa D, Ferrer-Blasco T, Jorge J, Montés-Micó R (2011) Implantable collamer posterior chamber intraocular lenses: a review of potential complications. J Refract Surg 27:765–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumeister M, Terzi E, Ekici Y et al (2004) Comparison of manual and automated methods to determine horizontal corneal diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:374–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Domínguez-Vicent A, Pérez-Vives C, Ferrer-Blasco T, García-Lázaro S, Montés-Micó R (2016) Device interchangeability on anterior chamber depth and white-to-white measurements: a thorough literature review. Int J Ophthalmol 9:1057–1065

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Ghoreyshi M, Khodaman AR (2013) Comparison of Horizontal corneal diameter measurements using the Orbscan IIz and Pentacam HR systems. Cornea 32:1460–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dominguez-Vicent A, Perez-Vives C, Ferrer-Blasco T et al (2015) Interchangeability among five devices that measure anterior eye distances. Clin Exp Optom 98:254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 41:2224–2232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shajari M, Lehmann UC, Kohnen T (2016) Comparison of corneal diameter and anterior chamber depth measurements using 4 different devices. Cornea 35:838–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jung S, Chin HS, Kim NR, Lee KW, Jung JW (2017) Comparison of repeatability and agreement between swept-source optical biometry and dual-Scheimpflug topography. J Ophthalmol 2017:1516395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Arriola-Villalobos P, Almendral-Gomez J, Garzon N et al (2017) Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer. Eye (Lond) 31:437–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Tajbakhsh Z et al (2017) Agreement of corneal diameter measurements obtained by a swept-source biometer and a Scheimpflug-based topographer. Cornea 36:1373–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Hoffer KJ (2018) Repeatability of automatic measurements by a new anterior segment optical coherence tomographer combined with Placido topography and agreement with 2 Scheimpflug cameras. J Cataract Refract Surg 44:471–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ferrer-Blasco T, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Martínez-Albert N, Alfonso JF, Montés-Micó R (2018) Agreement of white-to-white measurements with the IOLMaster 700, Atlas 9000, and Sirius systems. Expert Rev Med Devices 15:453–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cho YJ, Lim TH, Choi KY, Cho BJ (2018) Comparison of ocular biometry using new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer with other devices. Korean J Ophthalmol 32:257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. El Chehab H, Agard E, Dot C (2019) Comparison of two biometers: a swept-source optical coherence tomography and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer. Eur J Ophthalmol 29:547–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sabatino F, Matarazzo F, Findl O, Maurino V (2019) Comparative analysis of 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers. J Cataract Refract Surg 45:1124–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang CM, Lim DH, Kim HJ, Chung TY (2019) Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer. PLoS ONE 14:e0223114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lu W, Li Y, Savini G, Song B, Hu Q, Wang Q, Bao F, Huang J (2019) Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and a Scheimpflug-Placido tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 45:298–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chan TCY, Wan KH, Tang FY, Wang YM, Yu M, Cheung C (2020) Repeatability and agreement of a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer IOLMaster 700 versus a Scheimpflug imaging-based biometer AL-Scan in cataract patients. Eye Contact Lens 46:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liao X, Peng Y, Liu B, Tan QQ, Lan CJ (2020) Agreement of ocular biometric measurements in young healthy eyes between IOLMaster 700 and OA-2000. Sci Rep 10:3134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 31:330–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2015) Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) studies and sample-size calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2598–2604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohamed A, Nankivil D, Pesala V et al (2013) The precision of ophthalmic biometry using calipers. Can J Ophthalmol 48:506–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oftalvist Clinic, Alicante, Spain

    Pedro Tañá-Rivero, Salvador Aguilar-Córcoles, José Luís Rodríguez-Prats & Ramón Ruiz-Mesa

  2. Optics and Optometry and Vision Sciences Department, University of Valencia, C/Dr. Moliner 50, 46100, Burjassot, Spain

    Robert Montés-Micó

Authors
  1. Pedro Tañá-Rivero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salvador Aguilar-Córcoles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Luís Rodríguez-Prats
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Montés-Micó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ramón Ruiz-Mesa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Montés-Micó.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the OFTALVIST institutional review board and conducted in adherence to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

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

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tañá-Rivero, P., Aguilar-Córcoles, S., Rodríguez-Prats, J.L. et al. Agreement of white-to-white measurements with swept-source OCT, Scheimpflug and color LED devices. Int Ophthalmol 41, 57–65 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01552-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-020-01552-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation