Evaluation and comparison of a novel Scheimpflug‑based optical biometer with standard partial coherence interferometry for biometry and intraocular lens power calculation

Wang,Ziyang; Yang,Wenli; Li,Dongjun; Chen,Wei; Zhao,Qi; Li,Yifeng; Cui,Rui; Shen,Lin; Xian,Junfang

doi:10.3892/etm.2021.9757

Evaluation and comparison of a novel Scheimpflug‑based optical biometer with standard partial coherence interferometry for biometry and intraocular lens power calculation

Authors:
- Ziyang Wang
- Wenli Yang
- Dongjun Li
- Wei Chen
- Qi Zhao
- Yifeng Li
- Rui Cui
- Lin Shen
- Junfang Xian
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Beijing Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Key Lab, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100730, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100730, P.R. China
Published online on: February 5, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.9757
Article Number: 326
Copyright: © Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

In the present study, the axial length (AL), corneal curvature, anterior chamber depth (ACD) and white‑to‑white (WTW) distance were assessed using the Pentacam AXL (Oculus Optikgeraete GmbH), a novel Scheimpflug‑based optical biometer with standard partial coherence interferometry (PCI). The Pentacam AXL and PCI biometer (IOLMaster 500; Carl Zeiss AG) were compared in terms of their intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. The medical records of patients (eyes, n=190) who underwent cataract surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Biometry measurements involved the eyes of patients with cataract and were performed by the same examiner with the Pentacam AXL biometer and the IOLMaster 500 device. Following determination of the AL, mean keratometry (Km), ACD and WTW distance, the IOL power calculation was compared between the two devices using the Sanders, Retzlaff and Kraff theoretical (SRK/T) and Haigis formulas. The AL, Km and WTW values for the Pentacam AXL group were significantly lower compared with those of the IOLMaster 500 group. The difference was ‑0.02±0.04 mm, ‑0.20±0.28 D and ‑0.10±0.20 mm, respectively (P<0.001). The ACD for the Pentacam AXL group was higher compared with that of the IOLMaster 500 group with a difference of 0.02±0.13 mm (P=0.13). The IOL power calculated using the SRK/T and Haigis formulas exhibited significant differences between the two devices (t=11.48 and 10.97, respectively; P<0.001). In conclusion, the AL, ACD, WTW measurement and IOL power indicated optimal agreement and strong correlations between the two devices. However, constant optimization may be necessary for the novel biometer Pentacam AXL.

View Figures

View References

1	Olsen T: Calculation of intraocular lens power: A review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 85:472–485. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Kitthaweesin K and Mungsing W: Agreement and reproducibility of contact and immersion techniques for axial length measurement and intraocular lens power calculation. J Med Assoc Thai. 92:1046–1049. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
3	Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B and Wolffsohn JS: A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol. 86:458–462. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Ruiz-Mesa R, Abengózar-Vela A and Ruiz-Santos M: Comparison of a new Scheimpflug imaging combined with partial coherence interferometry biometer and a low-coherence reflectometry biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 43:1406–1412. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D and Kiraly L: Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 40:318–322. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Lam AK, Chan R and Pang PC: The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 21:477–483. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Naderan M, Shoar S, Naderan M, Kamaleddin MA and Rajabi MT: Comparison of corneal measurements in keratoconic eyes using rotating Scheimpflug camera and scanning-slit topography. Int J Ophthalmol. 8:275–280. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	User Group for Laser Interference Biometry (ULIB): Optimized IOL constants for the Zeiss IOLMaster calculated from patient data on file (as of Oct 31, 2016). www.ocusoft.de/ulib/c1.html. Last accessed November 1, 2018.
9	Einan-Lifshitz A, Rozenberg A, Wang L, Koch DD, Shoshany N, Zadok D, Avni I and Abulafia A: Accuracy and feasibility of axial length measurements by a new optical low-coherence reflectometry-based device in eyes with posterior subcapsular cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 43:898–901. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Ferrer-Blasco T, Domínguez-Vicent A, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Aloy MA, Adsuara JE and Montés-Micó R: Evaluation of the repeatability of a swept-source ocular biometer for measuring ocular biometric parameters. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 255:343–349. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E and Labetoulle M: Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: Comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg. 40:593–600. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, Singh P, Müller M and Kohnen T: Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol. 178:58–64. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Norrby S: Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 34:368–376. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	McAlinden C, Wang Q, Gao R, Zhao W, Yu A, Li Y, Guo Y and Huang J: 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. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, Yang X, Bao F, Yu A, Lin S, Feng Y and Huang J: Axial length measurement failure rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in eyes with cataract. PLoS One. 10(e0128929)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Hill W, Angeles R and Otani T: Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg. 34:920–924. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Symes RJ and Ursell PG: Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: Comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values. J Cataract Refract Surg. 37:295–301. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M and Hoffer KJ: Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 35:1193–1197. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Özyol P and Özyol E: Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and scheimpflug-based topography measurements of anterior segment parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 169:73–78. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Karunaratne N: Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL Master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 41:825–834. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Lackner B, Schmidinger G and Skorpik C: Validity and repeatability of anterior chamber depth measurements with Pentacam and Orbscan. Optom Vis Sci. 82:858–861. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Muzyka-Woźniak M and Oleszko A: Comparison of anterior segment parameters and axial length measurements performed on a Scheimpflug device with biometry function and a reference optical biometer. Int Ophthalmol. 39:1115–1122. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Gharaee H, Abrishami M, Shafiee M and Ehsaei A: White-to-white corneal diameter: Normal values in healthy Iranian population obtained with the Orbscan II. Int J Ophthalmol. 7:309–312. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Kohnen T, Kook D, Morral M and Güell JL: Phakic intraocular lenses: part 2: results and complications. J Cataract Refract Surg. 36:2168–2194. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Trivedi RH, Wilson ME and Reardon W: Accuracy of the Holladay 2 intraocular lens formula for pediatric eyes in the absence of preoperative refraction. J Cataract Refract Surg. 37:1239–1243. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Huang J, Savini G, Wu F, Yu X, Yang J, Yu A, Yu Y and Wang Q: Repeatability and reproducibility of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence interferometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 41:2233–2241. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P and 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. 41:2224–2232. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
28	Jia L and Li Z: Evaluation of the consistency of total spherical aberration before and after aspherical intraocular lens implantation. Eye Sci. 28:129–133. 2013.PubMed/NCBI
29	Zheng T, Chen Z and Lu Y: Influence factors of estimation errors for total corneal astigmatism using keratometric astigmatism in patients before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 42:84–94. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Jin H, Rabsilber T, Ehmer A, Borkenstein AF, Limberger IJ, Guo H and Auffarth GU: Comparison of ray-tracing method and thin-lens formula in intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 35:650–662. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar