Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer

Abstract

PurposeTo compare measurements taken using a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer (Lenstar 900), and to determine the clinical impacts of differences in their measurements on intraocular lens (IOL) power predictions.MethodsEighty eyes of 80 patients scheduled to undergo cataract surgery were examined with both biometers. The measurements made using each device were axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), aqueous depth (AQD), lens thickness (LT), mean keratometry (MK), white-to-white distance (WTW), and pupil diameter (PD). Holladay 2 and SRK/T formulas were used to calculate IOL power. Differences in measurement between the two biometers were determined using the paired t-test. Agreement was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.ResultsMean patient age was 76.3±6.8 years (range 59-89). Using the Lenstar, AL and PD could not be measured in 12.5 and 5.25% of eyes, respectively, while IOLMaster 700 took all measurements in all eyes. The variables CCT, AQD, LT, and MK varied significantly between the two biometers. According to ICCs, correlation between measurements made with both devices was excellent except for WTW and PD. Using the SRK/T formula, IOL power prediction based on the data from the two devices were statistically different, but differences were not clinically significant.ConclusionsNo clinically relevant differences were detected between the biometers in terms of their measurements and IOL power predictions. Using the IOLMaster 700, it was easier to obtain biometric measurements in eyes with less transparent ocular media or longer AL.

Comparison of two biometers: A swept-source optical coherence tomography and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer

“…This difference is low and clinically not significant. Arriola-Villalobos et al 6 found a statically but clinically significant difference between these two devices.…”

“…5,6 This rate seems higher with the optical low-coherence reflectometry where the failure rates vary between 5.8% and 16%. [6][7][8][9] This difference can be explained by the higher wavelength used in biometry with the swept-source OCT (1080 vs 820 nm), allowing deeper penetration and less attenuation or diffusion of light when lens opacity is present. For the different noncontact optical biometry technologies, posterior subcapsular cataracts are a source of measurement failure.…”

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

“…5.4 vs. Argos: p = 0.006). Hoffer et al and Villalobos et al also report that the value measured by IOLMaster 700 was significantly smaller than those measured by PCI devices [4, 14]. The difference between the two SS-OCT devices and the PCI device might be due to difference in measurement technique for each type of device.…”

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

“…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][6][7].…”