Purpose To investigate agreement between 2 swept source OCT biometers, IOL Master700 and Anterion, in various ocular biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) calculations of primary angle-closure disease (PACD). Setting Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Design Prospective comparative study. Methods This study conducted in a tertiary eye care center involving biometric measurements obtained with 2 devices in phakic eye with diagnosis of PACD. Mean difference and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with confidence limits were assessed, and calculations of estimated residual refraction of the IOL were analysed using Barrett’s formula. Results Sixty-nine eyes from 45 PACD patients were enrolled for the study. Excellent agreement of various parameters was revealed, with ICC (confidence limits) of K1 = 0.953 (0.861–0.979), K2 = 0.950 (0.778–0.98), ACD = 0.932 (0.529–0.978), WTW = 0.775 (0.477–0.888), and LT = 0.947 (0.905–0.97). Mean difference of axial length (AL) was -0.01 ± 0.02 mm with ICC of 1.000. IOL calculation was assessed with Barrett’s formula, and Bland-Altman plot showed excellent agreement in the results of the 2 devices for the IOL power and estimated post-operative residual refraction (EPR). Conclusions Mean differences of biometric parameters, obtained with IOL Master700 and Anterion, were small, and ICC showed excellent concordance. No clinical relevance in calculation of IOL power was found, and the two devices appeared to be comparably effective in clinical practice.

To evaluate the performance of a new swept source optical coherence tomography optical biometer, ANTERION, in ocular biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) calculation compared with the reference standard of Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GALILEI, G6). A prospective comparative study was conducted in a tertiary eye center. Cataract patients were scanned with both devices in a random fashion, and parameters from the devices were analyzed in terms of mean difference and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Bland–Altman plots were performed to compare agreement between the devices. Ninety-six eyes from 96 patients were enrolled for evaluation. With the exception of ACD, all parameters were significantly different, but excellent agreement was revealed for all of them. The mean difference in axial length was 0.03 mm, and ICC was 0.999. Calculated IOL power with Barrett formula revealed that 93.75% were within 1 diopter and the prediction error was 0.03 diopter. Biometry of the devices were arithmetically different. However, the mean difference of the key factors in IOL calculation were small and appeared to be negligible for the purposes of clinical application. The performance of ANTERION was comparable to that of G6 in biometric measurement and IOL calculation; however, the devices cannot be used interchangeably.