medigraphic.com
Anales de la Sociedad Mexicana de Oftalmología y Archivos de la Asociación Para Evitar la Ceguera en México

2019, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Oftalmol 2019; 93 (3)

Comparative analysis and repeatability assessment of IOL Master 500 versus IOL Master 700 biometry in cataract patients

Saucedo-Urdapilleta R, González-Godínez S, Mayorquín-Ruiz M, Moragrega-Adame E, Velasco-Barona C, González-Salinas, Roberto

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 130-136
PDF size: 187.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose: To assess the repeatability of the swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer (IOL Master 700) and evaluate its agreement with a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) biometer (IOL Master 500) in patients undergoing routine cataract surgery. Design: This is a prospective, comparative study. Methods: Axial length (AL), keratometry (k), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and white-to-white distance (WTW) values were obtained by PCI-based biometer and compared with those obtained by SS-OCT. A Student´s t-test was used for comparison of continuous variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots were obtained to describe the correlation and limits of agreement between platforms. Results: The study included 55 eyes with a mean age of 69 ± 11 years of age. The mean differences between swept-source and PCI-based biometry for AL, keratometry, ACD and WTW distance were 0.16 mm ± 2.30, 0.06 D ± 0.38, 0.02 mm ± 0.12 and 0.15 mm ±, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between biometers in two parameters: AL (p = 0.0003) and ACD (p = 0.038). Conclusion: SS-OCT biometry showed high repeatability for all biometric parameters. Keratometry and WTW distance values showed a good level of agreement between SS-OCT and PCI-based biometry. However, AL and ACD measurements showed statistically significant differences between the two optical biometers.


REFERENCES

  1. Grulkowski I, Liu JJ, Zhang JY, Potsaid B, Jayaraman V, Cable AE, Duker JS, Fujimoto JG. Reproducibility of a long-range swept-source optical coherence tomography ocular biometry system and comparison with clinical biometers. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(11):2184-90.

  2. Shammas HJ, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability and reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements using a noncontact optical lowcoherence reflectometer and keratometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 2012; 153(1):55-61.

  3. Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008;19(1):13-7.

  4. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(3):513-7.

  5. Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B, Wolffsohn JS. A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002; 86(4):458-62.

  6. Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, Haigis W, Sekundo W, Schütze J, Büehren T. 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. 2016;42(1):76-83.

  7. Karbassi M, Khu PM, Singer DM, Chylack JL. Evaluation of lens opacities classification system III applied at the slitlamp. Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70(11):923-8.

  8. Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17(4): 571-82.

  9. Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100(9):1201-5.

  10. Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40(4):593-600.

  11. Kurian M, Negalur N, Das S, Puttaiah NK, Haria D, Thakkar MM. Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: Repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016;42(4):577-81.

  12. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S. 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. 2015;41(10):2224-32.

  13. Holladay JT, Musgrove KH, Prager TC, Lewis JW, Chandler TY, Ruiz RS. A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1988;14(1):17-24.

  14. Retzlaff JA, Sanders DR, Kraff MC. Development of the SRK/T intraocular lens implant power calculation formula. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1990;16(3):333-40.

  15. Hoffer KJ. The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1993;19(6):700-12.

  16. Haigis W. Intraocular lens calculation in extreme myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009;35(5):906-11.

  17. Vogel A, Dick HB, Krummenauer F. Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry: intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(12):1961-8.

  18. Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, Jorge J, Micó RM. 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. 2012;38(1):46-53.

  19. Çağlar Ç, Kocamış Sİ, Demir E, Durmuş M. Comparison of the measurements of a novel optical biometry: Nidek AL-Scan with Sirius and a ultrasound biometry. International Ophthalmol. 2017;37(3):491-8.

  20. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007;85(5):472-85.

  21. Epitropoulos A. Axial length measurement acquisition rates of two optical biometers in cataractous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1369.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com