+ Site Statistics
References:
52,654,530
Abstracts:
29,560,856
PMIDs:
28,072,755
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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



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



Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 42(1): 76-83



To estimate the repeatability of biometric parameters obtained with a new swept-source biometer and to compare the agreement with that of partial coherence interferometry (PCI) and optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR). Department of Ophthalmology, Helios Hospital Erfurt, Erfurt, Julius-Maximilians University, Würzburg, and Philipps University, Marburg, Germany. Prospective comparative multicenter clinical study. Biometry was taken with the use of 3 different biometers: the IOLMaster 700 swept-source biometer, the PCI-based IOLMaster 500, and the OCLR-based Lenstar LS 900. Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and spherical equivalent (SE) were compared between swept-source and PCI biometry and central corneal thickness (CCT) and lens thickness (LT) between swept-source and OLCR biometry. The repeatability of swept-source biometry was evaluated on the basis of 3 measurements captured for each patient. One hundred twenty cataract eyes were included in the study. The mean difference between swept-source and PCI biometry for AL, ACD, and SE measurements was 4 μm ± 25 (SD), 17 ± 122 μm, and -0.001 ± 0.19 diopter (D), respectively. The mean difference between swept-source and OLCR biometry for LT and CCT measurements was 21 ± 122 μm and 0.15 ± 4.51 μm, respectively. Differences between swept-source biometry and the other devices distributed around zero without statistical significance. The standard deviation of repeatability for AL, ACD, LT, CCT, and SE was 8.8 μm, 9.8 μm, 2.3 μm, 19.5 μm, and 0.1 D, respectively. Swept-source biometry showed high repeatability performance for all biometric parameters. The agreement of AL, ACD, and SE between swept-source and PCI biometry as well as that of LT and CCT between swept-source and OLCR biometry was excellent. It remains to be validated whether high repeatability shown by swept-source biometry will result in better postoperative refractive outcomes. Drs. Blum and Sekundo are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Carl Zeiss Meditec AG. Drs. Peter and Bühren are employees of Carl Zeiss Meditec AG.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 058739861

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26948781

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.039


Related references

Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: Repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 42(4): 577-581, 2018

Comparison of axial length using a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer - ARGOS with partial coherence interferometry- based biometer -IOLMaster among school children. Plos One 13(12): E0209356-E0209356, 2018

Comparison of a new optical biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a biometer using optical low-coherence reflectometry. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 42(8): 1165-1172, 2018

Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry. Plos One 13(4): E0196401, 2018

Axial length measurements: Comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer and partial coherence interferometry in myopia. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 43(3): 328-332, 2017

Comparison of two biometers: A swept-source optical coherence tomography and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer. European Journal of Ophthalmology 2018: 1120672118802918, 2018

Comparison of agreement and efficiency of a swept source-optical coherence tomography device and an optical low-coherence reflectometry device for biometry measurements during cataract evaluation. Clinical Ophthalmology 12: 2245-2251, 2018

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. Eye and Contact Lens 2019, 2019

Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates With Biometers Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Compared to Partial-Coherence Interferometry and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry. American Journal of Ophthalmology 173: 64-69, 2016

Measurement agreement between a new biometer based on partial coherence interferometry and a validated biometer based on optical low-coherence reflectometry. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 42(1): 68-75, 2016

Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 41(10): 2224-2232, 2016

Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using New Swept-source Optical Coherence Tomography-based Optical Biometer with Other Devices. Korean Journal of Ophthalmology 32(4): 257-264, 2018

Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster. British Journal of Ophthalmology 101(4): 493-498, 2016

Ocular measurements of a swept-source biometer: Repeatability data and comparison with an optical low-coherence interferometry biometer. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2019, 2019

Correlation of choroidal thickness and volume measurements with axial length and age using swept source optical coherence tomography and optical low-coherence reflectometry. Biomed Research International 2014: 639160, 2015