Interchangeability among five devices that measure anterior eye distances

The comparison of white-to-white via triple person-times caliper measuring and machine-measuring in V4c implantable collamer lens implantation

This study aimed to compare the differences and characteristics of white-to-white (WTW) values obtained before V4c implantation using triple person-times caliper, IOL-Master 700, Pentacam HR, and UBM, and to assess their correlation with vaulting. A total of 930 myopia patients (1842 eyes) who were interested in undergoing ICL surgery were assessed before the procedure using various instruments. The WTW measurements were obtained using a triple person-times caliper, Pentacam HR, and IOL-Master 700, whereas the angle-to-angle (ATA) measurements were obtained using UBM. The size of the ICL was subsequently calculated using triple person-times caliper measurements. The vault of the ICL was assessed using Pentacam HR three months after the surgery. The WTW was determined to be 11.30 ± 0.29 mm, 11.43 ± 0.29 mm, and11.86 ± 0.38 mm, respectively, using the triple person-times caliper, Pentacam HR, and IOL-Master 700. The measurement of ATA was 11.57 ± 0.51 mm, as done by UBM. The ICL vault was measured to be 400.97 ± 198.46 µm when examined with Pentacam HR three monthsafter the procedure. The linear regression analyses of ICL size and WTW of triple person-times caliper, ICL vault and WTW were (R = 0.703, p < 0.001; R = 0.0969, p < 0.001) respectively. The highest correlation was found between IOL-Master and Pentacam HR (r = 0.766, p = 0.000). The lowest correlation was found between UBM and Pentacam HR (r = 0.358, p = 0.002). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were the triple person-times caliper and Pentacam HR (- 0.573, 0.298) and the triple person-times caliper and UBM (- 1.15, - 0.605). This indicated a strong agreement between the triple person-times caliper and Pentacam HR and a lack of agreement between the triple person-times caliper and UBM. Triple person-times caliper measurements offer excellent maneuverability, practicality, and reliable outcomes for determining ICL vaults. Measurements obtained using the triple-person caliper were less differece than those obtained using the Pentacam HR.

Repeatability and Agreement of Horizontal Corneal Diameter Measurements Between Scanning-Slit Topography, Dual Rotating Scheimpflug Camera With Placido Disc Tomography, Placido Disc Topography, and Optical Coherence Tomography

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability and agreement of horizontal white-to-white (WTW) measurements using 4 different imaging modalities including a slit-scanning elevation topographer, dual rotating Scheimpflug camera and Placido Disc tomographer, Placido Disc topographer, and anterior segment optical coherence (OCT) tomographer.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 33 eyes of 33 healthy subjects were scanned 3 times using each of the Orbscan IIz, Sirius, Nidek OPD III, and DRI OCT Triton devices and WTW measurements were recorded. Repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and agreement was analyzed using Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Mean WTW values obtained from the Orbscan IIz, Sirius, Nidek, and DRI OCT Triton devices were 11.76 ± 0.41, 12.10 ± 0.45, 12.14 ± 0.41, and 12.40 ± 0.48 mm, respectively. Overall, there was high repeatability, with the ICC >0.86 for all devices. The Sirius showed the highest repeatability (ICC = 0.993), and the Nidek the lowest (ICC = 0.870). All pairwise comparison showed significant differences in the mean WTW measurements ( P < 0.01) except between Sirius and Nidek ( P = 0.27). Mean differences showed that the DRI OCT Triton had the highest WTW values, followed by Nidek, Sirius, and finally by Orbscan, which provided the lowest measurements. All pairwise comparisons had wide limits of agreements (between 0.60 and 0.80 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy subjects the 4 devices demonstrated high repeatability in WTW measurement. However, a poor agreement between the devices suggests that they should not be used interchangeably for WTW measurements in clinical practice.

Effect of pupil dilation on biometry measurements and intraocular lens power in eyes with high myopia

Purpose

The present study sought to evaluate the effects of pupil dilation on ocular parameter measurements and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation using IOLMaster in highly myopic cataract patients.

Materials and methods

A total of 233 eyes were included in this prospective study and assigned to four groups based on range of axial length (AL) as follows: group A:26–28 mm, group B:28–30 mm, group C:30–32 mm, and group D:32–36 mm. Flattest and steepest keratometry (K1 and K2), AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and white-to-white (WtW) were determined using IOLMaster before and after administration of topical tropicamide. The corresponding IOL powers were calculated using Sanders–Retzlaff–Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T), Haigis, and Barrett Universal II formulas.

Results

Variations in AL, K1 and K2 following dilation were not significant (P > 0.05 in all groups). The results showed that ACD increased significantly after dilation (P = 0.000 in all groups), whereas LT decreased significantly after dilation (P = 0.000, 0.000, 0.001, and 0.003). Post-dilation WtW increased significantly in Group A, B, and C (P = 0.001, 0.001, and 0.025) but not in Group D. When IOL power was calculated as a discrete variable, significant differences were observed between pre- and post-dilation IOL power.

Conclusion

Pupil dilation in cataract eyes with high myopia does not cause significant changes in AL and K. However, it significantly increases ACD as well as WtW values and significantly decreases the LT value. Surgeons should evaluate the effect of pupil dilation on IOL power prediction as the present findings show extreme cases. Notably, Barrett Universal II formula had the best concordance between different pupil conditions in long eyes.

Daily Variations of Corneal White-to-White Diameter Measured with Different Methods

PURPOSE

A precise determination of the corneal diameter is essential for the diagnosis of various ocular diseases, cataract and refractive surgery as well as for the selection and fitting of contact lenses. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between two automatic and one manual method for corneal diameter determination and to evaluate possible diurnal variations in corneal diameter.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Horizontal white-to-white corneal diameter of 20 volunteers was measured at three different fixed times of a day with three methods: Scheimpflug method (Pentacam HR, Oculus), placido based topography (Keratograph 5M, Oculus) and manual method using an image analysis software at a slitlamp (BQ900, Haag-Streit).

RESULTS

The two-factorial analysis of variance could not show a significant effect of the different instruments (p = 0.117), the different time points (p = 0.506) and the interaction between instrument and time point (p = 0.182). Very good repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC, quartile coefficient of dispersion QCD) was found for all three devices. However, manual slitlamp measurements showed a higher QCD than the automatic measurements with the Keratograph 5M and the Pentacam HR at all measurement times.

CONCLUSION

The manual and automated methods used in the study to determine corneal diameter showed good agreement and repeatability. No significant diurnal variations of corneal diameter were observed during the period of time studied.

Repeatability and agreement of white-to-white measurements between slit-scanning tomography, infrared biometry, dual rotating Scheimpflug camera/Placido disc tomography, and swept source anterior segment optical coherence tomography

Purpose

To assess the agreement and repeatability of horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID) or white-to-white (WTW) measurements between four imaging modalities; combination slit scanning elevation/Placido tomography, infrared biometry, dual rotating scheimpflug camera/Placido tomography, and swept source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).

Methods

A prospective study of 35 right eyes of healthy volunteers were evaluated using the Orbscan IIz, IOL Master 700, Galilei G2, and DRI Triton OCT devices. The inter-device agreement and repeatability of HVID/WTW measurements for each device were analysed.

Results

Mean HVID/WTW values obtained by the Orbscan IIz, IOL Master 700, Galilei G2 and DRI Triton OCT were 11.77 ± 0.40 mm, 12.40 ± 0.43 mm, 12.25 ± 0.42 mm, and 12.42 ± 0.47 mm, respectively. All pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in mean HVID/WTW measurements (p = <0.01) except for the IOL Master 700—DRI OCT Triton pair (p = 0.56). Mean differences showed that the DRI Triton OCT produced the highest HVID/WTW values, followed by the IOL Master 700, Galilei G2 and Orbscan IIz, respectively. The limits of agreement were large on all device pairs. There was high repeatability for all devices (ICC ≥ 0.980). The highest repeatability was seen in the Galilei G2 (ICC = 0.995) and lowest in the Orbscan IIz (ICC = 0.980).

Conclusions

The four devices exhibit high repeatability, but should not be used interchangeably for HVID/WTW measurements in clinical practice.

Orbscan 3 Versus Pentacam HR: Evaluating the Possible Interchangeable Use of Various Parameters

PURPOSE

Many topography/tomography devices are available, and their interchangeable use is frequently questioned. This study aimed to compare the analogous indices of Orbscan 3 and Pentacam HR to detect whether the interchangeable use of the 2 devices is feasible.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at Eye World Hospital, Giza, Egypt. Displays of Orbscan 3 (Bausch & Lomb; Technolas Perfect Vision GmbH) and Pentacam HR (Oculus Optikegrate) for 660 healthy right eyes were explored for various analogous indices. Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used for comparisons.

RESULTS

The highest systematic error and lowest agreement existed in the front and back elevations from the best fit sphere (mean differences of 4.7 and 9.2 μm, respectively, and 95% LoA of -2.5 to 12.0 and -10.0 to 28.6, respectively). There was a relatively wide 95% LoA for each pachymetry at the corneal apex (-18 to 22 μm) and at the thinnest location (-22 to 22 μm), anterior chamber depth (-0.88 to 0.95 mm), flattest keratometry (-0.44 to 0.62 D), and steepest keratometry (-0.71 to 0.89 D). By contrast, the lowest systematic error and highest agreement existed for front and back best fit sphere radii of curvature (mean difference of 0.08 mm and 95% LoA of -0.08 to 0.24 and mean difference of 0.03 mm and 95% LoA of -0.17 to 0.23, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study negates the accuracy of the use of devices interchangeably regarding most parameters. Therefore, examinations with the 2 devices should not be regarded comparable.

Agreement of white-to-white measurements with swept-source OCT, Scheimpflug and color LED devices

PURPOSE

To assess the interchangeability of different devices for measuring white-to-white (WTW) distance.

METHODS

WTW distance was measured in 53 eyes of 53 patients using Anterion swept-source optical coherence topographer (SS-OCT), IOLMaster 700 SS-OCT, Pentacam HR Scheimpflug and Cassini color LED. Statistical analysis was done by means of the Friedman test and the post hoc Tukey test. The Bland-Altman analysis was applied to carry out pairwise comparisons with the average difference, 95% confidence interval of the average difference and limits of agreement 95% (LoA).

RESULTS

WTW values obtained by the Anterion, IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR and Cassini were: 11.84 ± 0.41 mm, 11.96 ± 0.41 mm, 11.68 ± 0.38 mm and 12.65 ± 0.52 mm, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found in all pairwise comparison (p < 0.001). The lowest mean difference was found between the Anterion and IOLMaster 700 (- 0.11 mm) and the highest between the Pentacam HR and Cassini (- 0.96 mm). The widest LoA ranges were those that compared any device with the Cassini. LoA ranges when the other three devices were compared among them were similar: Anterion versus IOLMaster 700, Anterion versus Pentacam HR and IOLMaster versus Pentacam HR (about 0.2 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that there were statistically significant differences in WTW measurement among the four devices, but under a clinical point of view, we believe that Anterion and IOLMaster 700 may be considered interchangeable and so Anterion and Pentacam HR, however, IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam HR may not and neither is Cassini with any of the other three devices.

The effect of cycloplegia on the ocular biometry and intraocular lens power based on age

BACKGROUND

To investigate the effect of cycloplegia on the ocular biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) power in different age groups.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study enrolled 240 right eyes of 240 healthy volunteers. Three groups were formed (range to years; group 1: 50-60, group 2: 30-40 and group 3: 10-20, respectively). We measured keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), white-to-white (WtW) distance, anterior chamber depth (ACD), and axial lentgh (AL) both before and after cycloplegia. The IOL powers were calculated using Sanders-Retzlaff-Kraff/theoretical (SRK/T), Holladay 1 and Haigis formulas. AL-Scan (Nidek Co., Gamagori, Japan) was used for all measurements.

RESULTS

There was a significant increased in keratometry, CCT, ACD, AL, and Holladay 1 after cycloplegia (p < 0.05), whereas WtW, SRK/T, and Haigis were not changed significantly in group 1 (p > 0.05). Keratometry, SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay 1 significantly decreased; ACD and WtW significantly increased postcycloplegia (p < 0.05) but AL and CCT did not change significantly in group 2 (p > 0.05). Significant increased in ACD, CCT, WtW, and AL, significant decreased in SRK/T and Haigis were observed postcycloplegia (p < 0.05), while the changes in keratometry and Holladay 1 were not significant in group 3 (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated there is significant difference in many ocular parameters and IOL power formulas before and after cycloplegia. Especially, ACD showed significant changes in all age groups. Therefore, to avoid refractive prediction errors the IOL power calculation formulas using the ACD should be considered.

Multivariate Analysis to Predict the Horizontal Anterior Chamber Diameter from Other Anterior Chamber Parameters Using Scheimpflug Imaging: Is There a Better Method Than Adding a Fixed Constant?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictive association between the horizontal anterior chamber diameter (HACD) and other measurements using Scheimpflug imaging, and to assess whether a method superior to using fixed constants can be proposed.

METHODS

This hospital-based study was performed in the Cornea and Refractive Surgery Services, New Medical Center (NMC) specialty hospital, Abu Dhabi. Initially, 100 candidates were included serially in the model building group (group1). All candidates underwent detailed evaluation and Scheimpflug imaging (CSO, Sirus, Italy). Subsequently, another 100 candidates were included serially in the validation group (group 2). Candidates in both groups underwent the same tests.

RESULTS

In group 1, the mean HACD was 12.25 ± 0.48 mm. This measurement correlated significantly with the horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID), anterior chamber depth, angle (ACA), and volume (ACV) (r = 0.2-0.7). The overall regression equation was HACD = 5.62 + 0.01 × ACV + 0.45 × HVID - 0.013 × ACA (adjusted R² = 0.66, p < 0.001). Situation-based equations derived from the outcomes of group 1 were tested in group 2. Equation A included all factors found significant during model-building, Equation B included only non-volumetric significant factors, and situation C only included the HVID. Equations D through F used direct substitution by HVID plus a constant to predict HACD (the constant was 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 for Equations D, E, and F, respectively). The predicted HACD (pHACD) was within ±0.5 mm of the actual HACD (aHACD) in 93%, 88%, 87%, 83%, 69%, and 16% case for Equations A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively. The mean prediction error was -0.14 ± 0.27 mm (p = 0.08), -0.15 ± 0.28 mm (p = 0.03), -0.18 ± 0.30 mm (p = 0.001), -0.18 ± 0.32 mm (p < 0.001), 0.33 ± 0.35 mm (p < 0.001), and 0.83 ± 0.35 mm (p < 0.001) for Equations A, B, C, D, E, and F, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Regression equations using Scheimpflug-derived anterior chamber parameters may predict HACD to varying degrees, depending on the input parameters. Adding 0.5 or 1.0 mm to the corneal diameter (CD) to estimate the HACD is not recommended.