|
|
|
| A Comparison of Axial Length Measurements with Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometry and Partial Coherence Interferometry AL-Scan |
| Yifeng Li, Wenli Yang, Dongjun Li, Ziyang Wang, Wei Chen, Qi Zhao, Rui Cui, Lin Shen, Junfang Xian |
| Department of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Beijing 100730, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective:To compare a swept-source coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometer (OA2000) with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) AL-Scan in terms of the axial length measurement success rate in eyes with cataract. Methods:A total of 378 eyes of 210 patients from the Department of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University were included in this case series study from November 29th to December 15th 2017. The axial lengths of these eyes were measured with the two biometers and the axial length measurement success rates with the instruments were assessed. A paired t test was used to compare the difference in axial length measurements between the two instruments and a Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess the correlation between the two biometers. The intra-group correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman method were used to assess the agreement in axial length measurements between the two biometers. The sampled eyes were divided into three groups: axial lengths less than 22 mm, 22-26 mm and over 26 mm. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the agreement in axial length measurements between these three groups. Results:The success rates of OA2000 and AL-Scan were 98.4% and 90.2%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference between the two (χ2=56.19, P<0.001). The axial lengths measured with the two biometers were 24.532±2.678 mm and 24.526±2.679 mm, with a difference of 0.006±0.058 mm. The difference was not statistically significant (t=1.847, P=0.066). The axial length measurements were closely correlated (r=1.000, P<0.001), and the ICC was 1.000. The 95% agreement range for Bland-Altman analysis was 0.23 mm (-0.12-0.11 mm). The 95% agreement range for the three groups mentioned above was 0.20 mm (-0.10-0.10 mm), 0.20 mm (-0.09-0.11 mm) and 0.33 mm (-0.16-0.17 mm), respectively. Conclusions:The SS-OCT based OA2000 out performs the PCI based AL-Scan in terms of axial length measurements in eyes with cataracts. The correlation and agreement in axial length measurements with the two biometers were excellent, especially in patients with 22-26 mm axial length.
|
|
Received: 26 July 2018
|
| Fund:Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals Clinical Medicine Development of Special Funding Support (ZYLX201704); High Level Health Technical Personnel of Bureau of Health in Beijing (2014-2-005) |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Wenli Yang, Department of Ophthalmology, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Beijing 100730, China (Email: yangwl_tr@163.com)
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
俞阿勇. 屈光性白内障手术的若干挑战. 中华眼视光学与视觉科学杂志, 2017, 19(2): 65-70. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn. 1674-845X.2017.02.001.
|
| [2] |
Olsen T.Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1992, 18(2): 125-129.
|
| [3] |
Rajan MS, Bunce C, Tuft S.Interocular axial length difference and age-related cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(1): 76-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.08.023.
|
| [4] |
Trivedi RH, Wilson ME.Prediction error after pediatric cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: Contact versus immersion a-scan biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(3): 501-505. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.09.023.
|
| [5] |
Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al.Partial coherence interferometry: A novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol, 1998, 126(4): 524-534.
|
| [6] |
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.
|
| [7] |
Olsen T.Calculation of intraocular lens power: A review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2007, 85(5): 472-485. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2007.00879.x.
|
| [8] |
Grulkowski I, Liu JJ, Zhang JY, et al.Reproducibility of a long-range swept-source optical coherence tomography ocular biometry system and comparison with clinical biometers. Ophthalmology, 2013, 120(11): 2184-2190. DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.007.
|
| [9] |
Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, et al.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, 2015, 41(10): 2224-2232. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.019.
|
| [10] |
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.
|
| [11] |
Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, et al.Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2000, 238(9): 765-773.
|
| [12] |
Fercher AF, Roth E.Ophthalmic laser interferometer. Proc Spie, 1986, 658: 48-51.
|
| [13] |
Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU.Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol, 2009, 93(6): 807-810. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008. 152736
|
| [14] |
Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EA, Gilmartin B, et al.A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry. Br J Ophthalmol, 2002, 86(4): 458-462.
|
| [15] |
Gantenbein C, Lang HM, Ruprecht KW, et al.First steps with the zeissiolmaster: A comparison between acoustic contact biometry and non-contact optical biometry. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd, 2003, 220(5): 309-314. DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-39430.
|
| [16] |
Aktas S, Aktas H, Tetikoglu M, et al.Refractive results using a new optical biometry device: Comparison with ultrasound biometry data. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94(48): e2169. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002169.
|
| [17] |
Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T.Evaluation of a new IOL Masteralgorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(6): 920-924. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.02.021.
|
| [18] |
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.
|
| [19] |
Telenkov SA, Mandelis A.Fourier-domain biophotoacoustic subsurface depth selective amplitude and phase imaging of turbid phantoms and biological tissue. J Biomed Opt, 2006, 11(4): 044006. DOI: 10.1117/1.2337290.
|
| [20] |
Terzi E, Wang L, Kohnen T.Accuracy of modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas in refractive lens exchange for high myopia and high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2009, 35(7): 1181-1189. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.02.026.
|
| [21] |
Yang JY, Kim HK, Kim SS.Axial length measurements: Comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer and partial coherence interferometry in myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2017, 43(3): 328-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.12.023.
|
| [22] |
Shen P, Zheng Y, Ding X, et al.Biometric measurements in highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2013, 39(2): 180-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.064.
|
|
|
|
2018, Vol. 20 
