Abstract： To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of axial length obtained by the optical biometer
IOLMaster 500 in children aged 2-6 years. Methods: One hundred and two right eyes from 102 children
were included in this cross-sectional study from Eye Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University from
December 2016 to March 2017. Each eye was measured by two experienced operators using the IOLMaster
500 with 3 consecutive measurements. To evaluate intraoperator repeatability using repeated measurement ANOVA, Bland-Altman plots, and use paired samples t test and so on to analyze data. Results: The axial length obtained by the IOLMaster 500 showed high repeatability (95%LoA within -0.04 to 0.04 mm, and ICC was 1.000). The reproducibility of axial length was also high (95%LoA within -0.04 to 0.03 mm, Sw<0.01mm, 2.77 Sw<0.03 mm, CoV<0.05%). The width of the 95%LoA was reduced by 42.86% usingaveraged results rather than the result of a single measurement. Conclusions: Axial lengths obtained by the IOLMaster 500 in children aged 2-6 years shows high repeatability and reproducibility. In addition, the mean value of 3 consecutive measurements is better than that of a single measurement.
Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1992, 18(2): 125-129.
[2]
Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of intraocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2001, 27(6): 861-867.
[3]
Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol, 2008, 19(1): 13-17. DOI: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f1c5ad.
Olsen T, Arnarsson A, Sasaki H, et al. On the ocular refractive components: the Reykjavik Eye Study. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2007, 85(4): 361-366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2006.00847.x.
[6]
Osuobeni EP. Ocular components values and their intercorrelations in Saudi Arabians. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 1999, 19(6): 489-497.
[7]
Guo Y, Liu LJ, Xu L, et al. Outdoor activity and myopia among primary students in rural and urban regions of Beijing. Ophthalmology, 2013, 120(2): 277-283. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha. 2012.07.086.
[8]
Santodomingo-Rubido J, Villa-Collar C, Gilmartin B, et al. Myopia control with orthokeratology contact lenses in Spain: refractive and biometric changes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2012, 53(8): 5060-5065. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8005.
[9]
Hua WJ, Jin JX, Wu XY, et al. Elevated light levels in schools have a protective effect on myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2015, 35(3): 252-262. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12207.
[10]
Vogel A, Dick HB, Krummenauer F. Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2001, 27(12): 1961-1968.
[11]
Nemeth J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N. Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2003, 29(1): 85-88.
Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G. Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2010, 36(4): 644-648. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.007.
[17]
Landers J, Goggin M. Comparison of refractive outcomes using immersion ultrasound biometry and IOLMaster biometry. Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2009, 37(6): 566-569. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02091.x.
[18]
Muscat S, McKay N, Parks S, et al. Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal thickness measurements by opticalcoherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2002, 43(6): 1791-1795.
[19]
Eleftheriadis H. IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases. Br J Ophthalmol, 2003, 87(8): 960-963.
[20]
Connors R 3rd, Boseman P 3rd, Olson RJ. Accuracy and reproducibility of biometry using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2002, 28(2): 235-238.
[21]
Hill WE. The IOLMaster. Tech Ophthalmol, 2003, 1(1): 62-67.
[22]
Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, et al. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2014, 40(4): 593-600. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2013. 09.015.
[23]
Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(3): 513-517. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.10.041.
[24]
Huang J, Savini G, Li J, et al. Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol, 2014, 98(9): 1277-1281. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305150.
[25]
Huang J, Savini G, Hoffer KJ, et al. Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol, 2017, 101(4): 493-498. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308352.
[26]
Chen W, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K, et al. Scheimpflug-Placido topographer and optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer: repeatability and agreement. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2012, 38(9): 1626-1632. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.04.031.
[27]
Shammas HJ, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability and reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements using a noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer and keratometer. Am J Ophthalmol, 2012, 153(1): 55-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.06. 012.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 1986, 1(8476): 307-310.
[30]
Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, et al. Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol, 2017, 178: 58-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.02.027.
[31]
Wang Q, Hua Y, Savini G, et al. Corneal power measurement obtained by fourier-domain optical coherence tomography: Repeatability, reproducibility, and comparison with scheimpflug and automated keratometry measurements. Cornea, 2015, 34(10): 1266-1271. DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000000564.
浙公网安备 33030202001892号