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

Chan, Tommy C Y; Wan, Kelvin; Tang, Fang; Wang, Yumeng; Yu, Marco; Cheung, Carol Y.

doi:10.1097/icl.0000000000000603

Cited by 28 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With all this data, the software of the system calculated the total corneal power and astigmatism, including magnitude and axis [19]. Concerning the Pentacam system (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), it uses Scheimpflug imaging to characterize the anterior segment [20]. A total of 100 images with 500 measurement points are taken with this device on the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces over a 180-degree rotation [20].…”

Section: Measurement Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the Pentacam system (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany), it uses Scheimpflug imaging to characterize the anterior segment [20]. A total of 100 images with 500 measurement points are taken with this device on the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces over a 180-degree rotation [20]. Gaussian approaches for the calculation of total corneal astigmatism considering the geometry of both corneal surfaces and pachymetry are provided by this device, such as the calculation of equivalent keratometric readings (EKR) [20].…”

Section: Measurement Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the keratometric and total corneal astigmatism measures provided by three different technologies as well as to assess the level of interchangeability among them. Methods: A Prospective, comparative study enrolling 94 eyes from 53 patients (age, 29-77 years) was carried out. All participants were patients with the diagnosis of cataract or patients with a transparent crystalline lens but seeking surgical presbyopia correction. A complete eye examination was performed in all eyes, including corneal analysis with three different devices: IOL-Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), Cassini (i-Optics), and Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). Interchangeability of standard and total keratometric readings (equivalent keratometric readings for Pentacam) and astigmatism measures with these three systems were evaluated with the Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Significantly higher standard and total keratometric readings were obtained with the IOL-Master compared to the other two systems (p<0.001). Likewise, a significantly higher magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism was obtained with the Cassini system (p<0.001). Ranges of the agreement for corneal power measurements between devices varied from 0.58 D to 1.53 D, whereas they ranged from 0.46 D to 1.37 D for standard and total astigmatism measurements. Conclusion: Corneal power and astigmatism measures obtained with IOL-Master 700, Cassini, and Pentacam systems cannot be used interchangeably. The impact of these differences on the refractive predictability achieved with different types of intraocular lenses (IOL) should be evaluated in the future in order to define which is the best corneal evaluation approach for optimizing the IOL power calculations.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Measurement Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been published several studies analyzing the agreement among instruments based on these techniques to measure WTW. These studies have analyzed the interchangeability of OCT devices and Scheimpflug cameras [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. New devices in the market and the possibility to use them to measure this distance make interesting their analysis to ascertain if there are differences between them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The previous studies that have assessed results of automated methods for obtaining WTW measurements are presented in Table 2 . Several investigations found a significant difference for the automatic methods, 9 – 12 with wide 95% limits of agreement greater than 1.0 mm in some studies. 8 , 9 , 12 This high variability in WTW among instruments can have serious surgical and clinical consequences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Several investigations found a significant difference for the automatic methods, 9 – 12 with wide 95% limits of agreement greater than 1.0 mm in some studies. 8 , 9 , 12 This high variability in WTW among instruments can have serious surgical and clinical consequences. If the ICL is too large, it will bow anteriorly, causing anterior chamber shallowing and introduce a risk of pupillary block and angle-closure glaucoma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Inter-device measurement variability of vital data parameters for keratorefractive and cataract refractive surgery

Kanclerz¹,

Przewłócka²,

Wang

2021

Ophthalmol Eye Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The measurements of corneal white-to-white (WTW) diameter and pupil size are critical for decision making in refractive surgery. Currently, automatic measurement of keratometry, corneal WTW, and pupil size are implemented in several ocular devices. The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between two commonly used devices, an autorefractor and an optical biometer, for these parameters. Methods: Measurements were performed with both a Lenstar LS-900 and Nidek ARK-1 by an experienced examiner in random order. The devices were placed in close proximity within the same dimly lit room. Results: The measurements of 65 right eyes were analyzed. The results of the flat, steep, and mean keratometric reading were not significantly different ( p = 0.96, p = 0.90, p = 0.93, respectively). Corneal WTW distances showed only moderate agreement between devices and were found to be significantly different ( r = 0.8071; p < 0.01). Pupil diameters showed poor agreement between devices and were significantly different ( r = 0.4890; p < 0.01). Agreement between implantable contact lens sizing, based on the measurements obtained by the two devices, was achieved for 19 of the 51 eyes (37.3%). Conclusion: We found a significant difference in WTW and pupil size measurements between ARK-1 and Lenstar. Results for both of the devices cannot be considered interchangeable for these data parameters.

show abstract

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

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

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

Inter-device measurement variability of vital data parameters for keratorefractive and cataract refractive surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About