Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer

Yang, Chan Min; Lim, Dong Hui; Kim, Hyo Jeong; Chung, Tae‐Young

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0223114

Cited by 42 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They can provide a whole image from the cornea to the posterior lens. They are known to have a superior ability to successfully measure the axial length (AL) compared with a partial coherence interferometry device [ 3 , 4 ]. IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), the first SS-OCT-based biometric device, is one of the most widely used devices for cataract surgery [ 3 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They are known to have a superior ability to successfully measure the axial length (AL) compared with a partial coherence interferometry device [ 3 , 4 ]. IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), the first SS-OCT-based biometric device, is one of the most widely used devices for cataract surgery [ 3 ]. Many studies have shown that IOLMaster 700 had good agreement with other devices, including IOLMaster 500 [ 5 – 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Choi

et al. 2021

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Precise measurement of ocular biometry is critical for determining intraocular lens power. Newly developed swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) - based ocular biometric devices, ANTERION and CASIA2 provide ocular biometric measurements as IOLMaster 700. This study aimed to assess agreement between three devices. Methods This retrospective comparative study includes patients with cataract who underwent ocular biometric measurements with three devices, ANTERION, CASIA2, and IOLMaster 700, at Seoul National University Hospital, in April 2020. Anterior keratometry, total keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and axial length (AL) were the main parameters for the comparison. To assess the agreement between the devices, intraclass coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used. Results A total of 47 eyes of 29 patients were measured with three devices. Average anterior keratometry showed excellent agreement (ICC ≥ 0.989), and the mean difference was less than 0.1 D. However, the ICC of the total average keratometry ranged from 0.808 to 0.952, and the difference was more than 0.43 D. The AL measured by ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 showed excellent agreement (ICC = 0.999), and the mean difference was 0.005 mm. The ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 did not obtain AL in six (12.8%) and three (6.4%) cases, respectively (P = 0.001 by Fisher’s exact test). The CCT, ACD, and LT also showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.9). Conclusions The new SS-OCT-based devices, ANTERION, and CASIA2 showed a good agreement with IOLMaster 700 in measuring ocular biometry except for the total keratometry. The AL of ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 showed excellent agreement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Choi

et al. 2021

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251152.t005PLOS ONEand Haigis (80.51%) for PCI. The highest percentages were achieved with the Barrett Universial II (80.51%), followed by the Haigis (79.67%), SRKT (76.27%) and Holladay1 (72.89%) for SS-OCT.DiscussionAmong SS-OCT devices currently used in clinical practice, Argos, IOL Master 700, and OA-2000 have been previously studied[1][2][3]. Fiu AD et al demonstrated that the ANTERION hadFig 2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…It can demonstrate the structure of the eyeball, corneal topography, and biometry, including the axial length (AL), owing to the greater tissue penetration depth by the light source. SS-OCT devices currently used in clinical practice include Argos (Movu, Santa Clara, CA), IOLMaster 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany), and OA-2000 (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) [1][2][3]. The accuracy of measurements with the previously widely used IOLMaster 500 has been well-established [4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive prediction of four different intraocular lens calculation formulas compared between new swept source optical coherence tomography and partial coherence interferometry

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the biometry and prediction of postoperative refractive outcomes of four different formulae (Haigis, SRK/T, Holladay1, Barrett Universal II) obtained by swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers and partial coherence interferometry (PCI; IOLMaster ver 5.4). Methods We compared the biometric values of SS-OCT (ANTERION, Heidelberg Engineering Inc., Heidelberg, Germany) and PCI (IOLMaster, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Predictive errors calculated using four different formulae (Haigis, SRKT, Holladay1, Barrett Universal II) were compared at 1 month after cataract surgery. Results The mean preoperative axial length (AL) showed no statistically significant difference between SS-OCT and PCI (SS-OCT: 23.78 ± 0.12 mm and PCI: 23.77 ± 0.12 mm). The mean anterior chamber depth (ACD) was 3.30 ± 0.04 mm for SS-OCT and 3.23 ± 0.04 mm for PCI, which was significantly different between the two techniques. The mean corneal curvature also differed significantly between the two techniques. The difference in mean arithmetic prediction error was significant in the Haigis, SRKT, and Holladay1 formulae. The difference in mean absolute prediction error was significant in all four formulae. Conclusions SS-OCT and PCI demonstrated good agreement on biometric measurements; however, there were significant differences in some biometric values. These differences in some ocular biometrics can cause a difference in refractive error after cataract surgery. New type SS-OCT was not superior to the IOL power prediction calculated by PCI.

show abstract

“…Optical biometry has been applied worldwide to calculate intraocular lens power [20,21]. It relies on optical coherence to detect various ocular characteristics, and it allows the measurement of ocular axial length as well as corneal anterior curvature, anterior chamber depth (distance from the top of the cornea to the anterior capsule of the lens), lens thickness, and corneal thickness [22][23][24][25]. Furthermore, the latest optical biometric techniques based on Fourier domain interferometry minimize measurement times, thereby improving the reliability of the measurements [24,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of cycloplegic refraction for noninvasive screening of children for refractive error

Magome

Morishige²,

Ueno³

et al. 2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detection of refractive error in children is crucial to avoid amblyopia and its impact on quality of life. We here performed a retrospective study in order to develop prediction models for spherical and cylinder refraction in children. The enrolled 1221 eyes of 617 children were divided into three groups: the development group (710 eyes of 359 children), the validation group (385 eyes of 194 children), and the comparison group (126 eyes of 64 children). We determined noncycloplegic and cycloplegic refraction values by autorefractometry. In addition, several noncycloplegic parameters were assessed with the use of ocular biometry. On the basis of the information obtained from the development group, we developed prediction models for cycloplegic spherical and cylinder refraction in children with the use of stepwise multiple regression analysis. The prediction formulas were validated by their application to the validation group. The similarity of noncycloplegic and predicted refraction to cycloplegic refraction in individual eyes was evaluated in the comparison group. Application of the developed prediction models for spherical and cylinder refraction to the validation group revealed that predicted refraction was significantly correlated with measured values for cycloplegic spherical refraction (R = 0.961, P < 0.001) or cylinder refraction (R = 0.894, P < 0.001). Comparison of noncycloplegic, cycloplegic, and predicted refraction in the comparison group revealed that cycloplegic spherical refraction did not differ significantly from predicted refraction but was significantly different from noncycloplegic refraction, whereas cycloplegic cylinder refraction did not differ significantly from predicted or noncycloplegic values. Our prediction models based on ocular biometry provide estimates of refraction in children similar to measured cycloplegic spherical and cylinder refraction values without the application of cycloplegic eyedrops.

show abstract

Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer

Cited by 42 publications

References 15 publications

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices

Refractive prediction of four different intraocular lens calculation formulas compared between new swept source optical coherence tomography and partial coherence interferometry

Prediction of cycloplegic refraction for noninvasive screening of children for refractive error

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About