|
|
|
| Comparison of Agreement and Success Rate of Axial Length Measurement between IOLMaster700 and IOLMaster500 in Cataract Patients |
| Rui Cui, Wenli Yang, Dongjun Li, Ziyang Wang, Wei Chen, Qi Zhao, Yifeng Li, Lin Shen |
| Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, Beijing 100730, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective:To compare the agreement and success rate of axial length (AL) measurement between IOLMaster700, a novel swept source biometer, and IOLMaster500, a traditional partial coherence interferometry (PCI) optical biometer. Methods:In this case series study, 840 age related cataract patients (840 eyes) were enrolled in Beijing Tongren Hospital from August to September 2017. AL measurement was performed using IOLMaster700 and IOLMaster500 respectively. The differences of success rates between the two instruments were compared by χ2 test. The differences of AL were compared by paired t test. The correlations and agreement were analyzed by Pearson correlation analysis and Bland-Altman analysis. Results:The success rate of IOLMaster700 and IOLMaster500 were 93.4% and 86.0%, respectively. There was significant difference between the two methods (χ2=63.00, P<0.001). The AL measured by IOLMaster700 and IOLMaster500 were 23.38±1.02 mm and 23.35±1.01 mm, respectively, with a difference of 0.03±0.04 mm (t=-19.06, P<0.001). There was high correlation between two instruments (r=1.00, P<0.001). The 95% agreement range of Bland-Altamn analysis was 0.13 (-0.04-0.09)mm. The absolute value of the upper and lower limit was 0.09 mm. Conclusions:Correlation and agreement between IOLMaster700 and IOLMaster500 are very high for AL measurements. Compared with IOLMaster500, IOLMaster700 has better AL measurement efficiency.
|
|
Received: 27 June 2018
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Wenli Yang, Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Key Laboratory, Beijing 100730, China (Email: yangwl_tr@163.com)
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al.Optical biometry in cataract surgery. Dev Ophthalmol, 2002, 34(4): 131-140.
|
| [2] |
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.
|
| [3] |
Norrby S.Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(3): 368-376. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.10.031.
|
| [4] |
Fayette RM, Cakiner-Egilmez T.What Factors Affect Intraocular Lens Power Calculation? Insight, 2015, 40(4): 15-18.
|
| [5] |
Olsen T.Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg, 1992, 18(2): 125-129.
|
| [6] |
Lam AK, Chan R, Pang PC.The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOLMaster. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 2001, 21(6): 477-483.
|
| [7] |
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.
|
| [8] |
Sheng H, Bottjer CA, Bullimore MA.Ocular component measurement using the Zeiss IOLMaster. Optom Vis Sci, 2004, 81(1): 27-34.
|
| [9] |
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.
|
| [10] |
Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA.Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond), 2002, 16(5): 552-556. DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700157.
|
| [11] |
Németh 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.
|
| [12] |
Kolega MŠ, Kovačević S, Čanović S, et al.Comparison of IOL--master and ultrasound biometry in preoperative intra ocular lens (IOL) power calculation. Coll Antropol, 2015, 39(1): 233-235.
|
| [13] |
Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T.Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2008, 34(6): 920-924. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.02.021.
|
| [14] |
陈斯, 王丹丹, 赵云娥. 组合信号分析技术在IOL Master测量白内障术前眼轴中的应用. 眼视光学杂志, 2009, 11(3): 161-165. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-845X.2009.03.001.
|
| [15] |
McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, et al. Axial length measurement failure rates with the IOLmaster and Lenstar LS 900 in eyes with cataract. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6): e0128929. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128929.
|
| [16] |
Kurian M, Negalur N, Das S, et al.Biometry with a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer: Repeatability and agreement with an optical low-coherence reflectometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(4): 577-581. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.07.039.
|
| [17] |
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.
|
| [18] |
Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG.Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol, 2016, 100(9): 1201-1205. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779.
|
| [19] |
Olsen T.Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand, 2007, 85(5): 472-485. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2007.00879.x.
|
| [20] |
Hirnschall N, Leisser C, Radda S, et al.Macular disease detection with a swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometry device in patients scheduled for cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(4): 530-536. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.02.029.
|
|
|
|
2018, Vol. 20 
