Agreement between two swept-source ocular coherence tomography biometry devices

Interchangeability in Automated Corneal Diameter Measurements Across Different Biometric Devices: A Systematic Review of Agreement Studies

PURPOSE

To provide an up-to-date review of the agreement in automated white-to-white (WTW) measurement between the latest topographic and biometric devices.

METHODS

In this systematic review, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for articles published between 2017 and 2023, focusing on WTW agreement studies on adult, virgin eyes, with or without cataract and no other ocular comorbidities. Studies evaluating WTW measurements performed with autokeratometers, manual calipers, or manual image analysis were excluded. When available, the following metrics for the agreement of WTW measurements between pairs of devices were included: mean difference ± standard deviation, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), LoA width, 95% confidence interval (95 CI%), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

Forty-one studies, covering comparisons for 19 devices, were included. Altogether, 81 paired comparisons were performed for 4,595 eyes of 4,002 individuals. The mean difference in WTW measurements between devices ranged from 0.01 mm up to 0.96 mm, with varying CI. The 95% LoA width ranged from 0.31 to 2.45 mm (median: 0.65 mm). The majority of pairwise comparisons reported LoA wider than 0.5 mm, a clinically significant value for phakic intraocular lens sizing.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all analyzed studies demonstrated the lack of interchangeability of the WTW parameter. The corneal diameter, assessed by means of grayscale en-face image analysis, tended to demonstrate the lowest agreement among devices compared to other measured biometric parameters. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(3):e182-e194.].

Comparison of 2 modern swept-source optical biometers—IOLMaster 700 and Anterion

Purpose

To compare biometric measures from 2 modern swept-source OCT biometers (IOLMaster700 (Z, Carl-Zeiss-Meditec) and Anterion (H, Heidelberg Engineering)) and evaluate the effect of measurement differences on the resulting lens power (IOLP).

Methods

Biometric measurements were made on a large study population with both instruments. We compared axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and corneal front and back surface curvature measurements. Corneal curvature was converted to power vectors and total power derived using the Gullstrand formula. A paraxial lens power calculation formula and a prediction for the IOL axial position according to the Castrop formula were used to estimate differences in IOLP targeting for emmetropia.

Results

There were no systematic differences between measurements of AL (− 0.0146 ± 0.0286 mm) and LT (0.0383 ± 0.0595 mm), whereas CCT yielded lower (7.8 ± 6.6 µm) and ACD higher (0.1200 ± 0.0531 mm) values with H. With H, CCT was lower for thicker corneas. The mean corneal front surface radius did not differ (− 0.4 ± 41.6 µm), but the corneal back surface yielded a steeper radius (− 397.0 ± 74.6 µm) with H, giving lower mean total power (− 0.3469 ± 0.2689 dpt). The astigmatic vector components in 0°/90° and 45°/135° were the same between both instruments for the front/back surface or total power.

Conclusion

The biometric measures used in standard formulae (AL, corneal front surface curvature/power) are consistent between instruments. However, modern formulae involving ACD, CCT or corneal back surface curvature may yield differences in IOLP, and therefore, formula constant optimisation customised to the biometer type is required.

Toric intraocular lenses: Evidence‐based use

Uncorrected refractive astigmatism degrades visual acuity. Spherical intraocular lenses (IOLs) leave astigmatic errors resident in the cornea manifest in refractive astigmatism. Toric IOLs, correcting for this corneal astigmatism, contribute to spectacle‐free vision in the pseudophakic eye. This review provides information to assist surgeons in a rational choice of eyes suitable for toric IOL implantation, methods of IOL cylinder power calculation, surgical techniques for toric IOLs and management of complications. With appropriate application of this information, correction of visually detrimental astigmatism can be achieved routinely.