J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2017 Dec;58(12):1325-1332. 10.3341/jkos.2017.58.12.1325.

A Comparison of Axial Length, Keratometry, and Measured White-to-white Using Different Devices

• Na M
• Lee HS
• Doh SH
• Chung SK

• KMID: 2397846
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.12.1325

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the accuracy and clinical usefulness of various devices by measuring axial length, keratometry, and white-to-white.
METHODS
In 64 eyes of 56 cataract patients, axial length was measured using Galileiâ„¢, Lenstar®, and A-scans, and keratometry was measured using Galileiâ„¢, Lenstar®, and ARK. In 86 eyes of 74 cataract patients, white-to-white was measured using Galileiâ„¢ and Lenstar®.
RESULTS
The average axial length measurements using Galileiâ„¢, Lenstar®, and A-scans were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.611). The 95% agreement range was the smallest at 0.22 mm for the Lenstar® and A-scans. The average mean K using Galileiâ„¢, Lenstar®, and ARK were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.657). The 95% agreement range was relatively small at 1.83 D for Lenstar® and ARK. The average white-to-white using Galileiâ„¢ and Lenstar® were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.011). The 95% agreement range was 2.20 mm.
CONCLUSIONS
Axial length, keratometry, and white-to-white measured by different devices were highly correlated and were not statistically different; however, agreement was low between measurements. It is therefore important to consider these findings when using them equally.

Keyword

Axial length; Galilei™; Keratometry reading; Lenstar®; White to white

MeSH Terms

Cataract
Humans

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 3 instruments for axial length (mm). (A) Galilei™, Lenstar®, (B) Galilei™, A-scan, (C) Lenstar®, A-scan. The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. SD = standard deviation.

• 

  Figure 2 Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 3 instruments for mean K(D), (A) Galilei™, Lenstar®, (B) Galilei™, ARK, (C) Lenstar®, ARK. The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. K = keratometry reading; SD = standard deviation.

• 

  Figure 3 Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 2 instruments for white to white (mm). The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. SD = standard deviation.

Reference

1. Olsen T. Prediction of the effective postoperative (intraocular lens) anterior chamber depth. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:419–424.

2. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chirapapaisan N, et al. Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 251:2563–2567.

3. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, et al. Agreement analysis of LENSTAR(R) with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:717–724.

4. 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; 98:1277–1281.

5. Ventura BV, Ventura MC, Wang L, et al. Comparison of biometry and intraocular lens power calculation performed by a new optical biometry device and a reference biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43:74–79.

6. Huang J, McAlinden C, Huang Y, et al. Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:43414. DOI: 10.1038/srep43414.

7. O'Donnell C, Hartwig A, Radhakrishnan H. Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measured using LenStar(R) LS900, Pentacam, and Visante AS-OCT. Cornea. 2012; 31:983–988.

8. Uçakhan OÖ, Akbel V, Bıyıklı Z, Kanpolat A. Comparison of corneal curvature and anterior chamber depth measurements using the manual keratometer, Lenstar LS 900 and the Pentacam. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013; 20:201–206.

9. Tappeiner C, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, et al. Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar(R) LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94:666–667.

10. Borrego-Sanz L, Saenz-Frances F, Bermudez-Vallecilla M, et al. Agreement between central corneal thickness measured using Pentacam, ultrasound pachymetry, specular microscopy and optic biometer Lenstar(R) LS 900 and the influence of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica. 2014; 231:226–235.

11. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU. Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:807–810.

12. Lee JW, Park SH, Seong MC, et al. Comparison of ocular biometry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients between Galilei™-G6(R) and IOL Master(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2015; 56:515–520.

13. Shin MC, Chung SY, Hwang HS, Han KE. Comparison of two optical biometers. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93:259–265.

14. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–129.

15. Zhao J, Chen Z, Zhou Z, et al. Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar(R) and comparison with two other non-contact biometric devices in myopes. Clin Exp Optom. 2013; 96:92–99.

16. Huerva V, Ascaso FJ, Soldevila J, Lavilla L. Comparison of anterior segment measurements with optical low-coherence reflectometry and rotating dual Scheimpflug analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:1170–1176.