SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of acquisition rate and agreement of axial length with two swept-source optical coherence tomographers and a partial coherence interferometer

  • Cataract
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the acquisition rate and agreement of axial length (AL) measurements with the OA-2000, Anterion, and IOLMaster 500 in cataractous patients.

Methods

In total, 298 eyes of 191 cataractous patients were enrolled and scanned with the three devices in random order. The success rate of AL measurements per device was calculated and a chi-square test was utilized to identify the differences in acquisition rate between the three devices. Logistic regression analysis was applied to evaluate the association of different cataract types and severity with the AL measurement acquisition rate. Bland–Altman plots were mapped to appraise the agreement of AL values.

Results

AL measurements were successfully achieved in 288 eyes (96.64%) with the OA-2000, in 282 eyes (94.30%) with the Anteiron, and in 246 eyes (82.55%) with the IOLMaster 500. Significant differences in the acquisition rate were found between either of the SS-OCT devices and IOLMaster 500 by chi-square analysis (P < 0.001). No significant difference was noted between OA-2000 and Anterion. Increasing severity of posterior subcapsular cataract was associated with a higher failure rate with the IOLMaster 500. Bland–Altman analysis identified good agreement between the three biometers with narrow 95% limits of agreement.

Conclusions

The OA-2000 and Anterion showed similarly higher acquisition rate of AL measurements than IOLMaster 500 in cataractous patients. Good agreement for AL values was found between the three biometers in cataractous patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ** GJ, Crandall AS, Jones JJ (2007) Intraocular lens exchange due to incorrect lens power. Ophthalmology 114:417–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2006.07.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Norrby S (2008) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen T (1992) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 18:125–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80917-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shammas HJ, Chan S (2010) Precision of biometry, keratometry, and refractive measurements with a partial coherence interferometry-keratometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1474–1478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.02.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lam AK, Chan R, Pang PC (2001) The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 21:477–483. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2001.00611.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Németh J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N (2003) Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:85–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(02)01500-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vogel A, Dick HB, Krummenauer F (2001) Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry : intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1961–1968. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01214-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rose LT, Moshegov CN (2003) Comparison of the Zeiss IOLMaster and applanation A-scan ultrasound: biometry for intraocular lens calculation. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 31:121–124. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9071.2003.00617.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhatt AB, Schefler AC, Feuer WJ, Yoo SH, Murray TG (2008) Comparison of predictions made by the intraocular lens master and ultrasound biometry. Arch Ophthalmol 126:929–933. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.126.7.929

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T (2008) Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:920–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.02.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, Yang X, Bao F, Yu A, Lin S, Feng Y, Huang J (2015) Axial length measurement failure rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in eyes with cataract. PLoS ONE 10:e0128929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128929

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S (2015) 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 41:2224–2232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurian M, Negalur N, Das S, Puttaiah NK, Haria D, J TS, Thakkar MM (2016) Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:577–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.01.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1201–1205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang J, Chen H, Li Y, Chen Z, Gao R, Yu J, Zhao Y, Lu W, McAlinden C, Wang Q (2019) Comprehensive comparison of axial length measurement with three swept-source OCT-based biometers and partial coherence interferometry. J Refract Surg 35:115–120. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20190109-01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Gao R, Zhao W, Yu A, Li Y, Guo Y, Huang J (2017) Axial length measurement failure rates with biometers using swept-source optical coherence tomography compared to partial-coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence interferometry. Am J Ophthalmol 173:64–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2016.09.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ruíz-Mesa R, Aguilar-Córcoles S, Montés-Micó R, Tañá-Rivero P (2020) Ocular biometric repeatability using a new high-resolution swept-source optical coherence tomographer. Expert Rev Med Devices 17:591–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2020.1772050

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schiano-Lomoriello D, Hoffer KJ, Abicca I, Savini G (2021) Repeatability of automated measurements by a new anterior segment optical coherence tomographer and biometer and agreement with standard devices. Sci Rep 11:983. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79674-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Panthier C, Rouger H, Gozlan Y, Moran S, Gatinel D (2022) Comparative analysis of 2 biometers using swept-source OCT technology. J Cataract Refract Surg 48:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jr CL, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, Mccarthy D, Wu SY (1993) The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 106:831–836

  21. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Du YL, Wang G, Huang HC, Lin LY, ** C, Liu LF, Liu XR, Zhang MZ (2019) Comparison of OA-2000 and IOL Master 500 using in cataract patients with high myopia. Int J Ophthalmol 12:844–847. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2019.05.23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Oh R, Oh JY, Choi HJ, Kim MK, Yoon CH (2021) Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices. BMC Ophthalmol 21:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-01826-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhu X, He W, Du Y, Lu Y (2017) Effect of fixation stability during biometry measurements on refractive prediction accuracy in highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 43:1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2017.06.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Freeman G, Pesudovs K (2005) The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 83:439–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00473.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasavada AR, Mamidipudi PR, Sharma PS (2004) Morphology of and visual performance with posterior subcapsular cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg 30:2097–2104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.02.076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown NA (1993) The morphology of cataract and visual performance. Eye (Lond) 7(Pt 1):63–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1993.14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. McAlinden C, Bao F, Guo Y, Yu X, Lu W, Chen H, Wang Q, Huang J (2016) Agreement of anterior ocular biometric measurements with a new optical biometer and a Scheimpflug tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:679–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.01.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chan T, Yu M, Chiu V, Lai G, Leung C, Chan P (2021) Comparison of two novel swept-source optical coherence tomography devices to a partial coherence interferometry-based biometer. Sci Rep 11:14853. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93999-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghaffari R, Mahmoudzadeh R, Mohammadi SS, Salabati M, Latifi G, Ghassemi H (2019) Assessing the validity of measurements of swept-source and partial coherence interferometry devices in cataract patients. Optom Vis Sci 96:745–750. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Reitblat O, Levy A, Kleinmann G, Assia EI (2018) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500. Eye (Lond) 32:1244–1252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-018-0063-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Olsen T (2007) Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:84–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00774.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Wenzhou Key Team of Scientific and Technological Innovation (grant number C20170002), Wenzhou Public Welfare Science and Technology Projects (grant number Y20170192), Young Talents Programme of Zhejiang Medical and Health Science and Technology Project (grant number 2019RC223), Engineering Development Project of Ophthalmology and Optometry (grant number GCKF201601), Nature and Science Foundation of China (grant number 81570869), and Zhejiang Provincial Foundation of China for Distinguished Young Talents in Medicine and Health (grant number 2010QNA018). The funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eye Hospital and School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, 270 West Xueyuan Road, Wenzhou, 325027, Zhejiang, China

    Shi-Ming Cheng, Wen-tao Yan, Jia-Sheng Zhang, Tian-tian Li, ** Li & A-Yong Yu

  2. National Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Shi-Ming Cheng, Wen-tao Yan, Jia-Sheng Zhang, Tian-tian Li, ** Li & A-Yong Yu

  3. Ophthalmology Department, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, Hubei, China

    Shi-Ming Cheng

Authors
  1. Shi-Ming Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wen-tao Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jia-Sheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tian-tian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. ** Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A-Yong Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A-Yong Yu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheng, SM., Yan, Wt., Zhang, JS. et al. Comparison of acquisition rate and agreement of axial length with two swept-source optical coherence tomographers and a partial coherence interferometer. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 260, 2905–2911 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05681-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-022-05681-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation