An evaluation of the IOLMaster 700 and its agreement with the IOLMaster v3 in children

Suitability of multifunction devices Myah and Myopia Master for monitoring myopia progression in children and adults

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of using multifunction instruments to measure axial length for monitoring myopia progression in children and adults.

METHODS

Axial length was measured in 60 children (aged 6-18 years) and 60 adults (aged 19-50 years) with multifunction instruments (Myah and Myopia Master) and stand-alone biometers (Lenstar LS900 and IOLMaster 700). Repeatability (measurements by the same examiner) and reproducibility (measurements by different examiners) were computed as the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Inter-instrument agreement was computed as intraclass correlation coefficients. The threshold for detecting myopic progression was taken as 0.1 mm. Measures were repeated only in children following the administration of 1% tropicamide to determine the impact of cycloplegia on axial length.

RESULTS

Overall, the IOLMaster 700 had the best repeatability in children (0.014 mm) and adults (0.009 mm). Repeatability Sw values for all devices ranged from 0.005 to 0.021 mm (children) and 0.003 to 0.016 mm (adults). In children, reproducibility fell within 0.1 mm 95% of the time for the Myah, Myopia Master and IOLMaster 700. Agreement among all devices was classified as excellent (ICC 0.999; 95% CI 0.998-0.999), but the 95% LoA among the Myah, Myopia Master and Lenstar LS900 was ≥0.1 mm. Cycloplegia had no statistically significant effect on axial length (all p > 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

The Myah and Myopia Master multifunction instruments demonstrated good repeatability and reproducibility, and their accuracy was comparable to stand-alone biometers. Axial length measurements using different instruments can be considered interchangeable but should be compared with some caution. Accurate axial length measurements can be obtained without cycloplegia. The multifunction instruments Myah and Myopia Master are as well suited for monitoring myopia progression in children as the stand-alone biometers IOLMaster 700 and Lenstar LS900.

Impact of age on measurement variability for axial length in myopic children

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Axial length is a primary outcome in the management of progressive myopia. However, young children may have difficulty fixating during these measurements compared to older children, which can result in higher measurement variability. This may affect perceived axial length progression, leading to inappropriate management.

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the impact of patient age on measurement variability for axial length measurements taken with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in myopic children.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records was undertaken at a university optometry clinic. Five axial length measurements captured at the same visit were collected with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 for myopic patients ≤16 years. The within-subject standard deviation and R2 were calculated for each instrument to examine the effects of age on instrument variability.

RESULTS

Data was collected for 51 patients (30 female and 21 male), and the mean age was 10.98 ± 2.77 years. Mean axial length measured with the IOLMaster 700 was longer compared to the IOLMaster 500 (difference -0.02 ± 0.02 mm; p < 0.001). There was no effect of age on within-person variability for the measurement of axial lengths with either instrument, with R2 values of 0.021 (p = 0.305) and 0.13 (p = 0.420) for the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500, respectively. The within-subject variability of axial measurements with the IOLMaster 700 was significantly lower than that with the IOLMaster 500 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Measurement variability of axial length measurements with the IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 was not dependent on age. However, axial length measurements captured with the IOLMaster 700 were significantly longer and less variable than those with the IOLMaster 500. Eye health care practitioners should be aware of the differences between the two instruments and refrain from using them interchangeably, especially for myopia control where small changes in axial length can affect patient management.

Optimization of biometry for best refractive outcome in cataract surgery

High-precision biometry and accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation have become essential components of cataract surgery. In clinical practice, IOL power calculation involves measuring parameters such as corneal power and axial length and then applying a power calculation formula. The importance of posterior corneal curvature in determining the true power of the cornea is increasingly being recognized, and newer investigative modalities that can estimate both the anterior and posterior corneal power are becoming the standard of care. Optical biometry, especially using swept-source biometers, with an accuracy of 0.01-0.02 mm, has become the state-of-the-art method in biometry. With the evolution of IOL formulas, the ultimate goal of achieving a given target refraction has also moved closer to accuracy. However, despite these technological efforts to standardize and calibrate methods of IOL power calculation, achieving a mean absolute error of zero for every patient undergoing cataract surgery may not be possible. This is due to inherent consistent bias and systematic errors in the measurement devices, IOL formulas, and the individual bias of the surgeon. Optimization and personalization of lens constants allow for the incorporation of these systematic errors as well as individual bias, thereby further improving IOL power prediction accuracy. Our review provides a comprehensive overview of parameters for accurate biometry, along with considerations to enhance IOL power prediction accuracy through optimization and personalization. We conducted a detailed search in PubMed and Google Scholar by using a combination of MeSH terms and specific keywords such as "ocular biometry," "IOL power calculations," "prediction accuracy of refractive outcome in cataract surgery," "effective lens position," "intraocular lens calculation formulas," and "optimization of A-constants" to find relevant literature. We identified and analyzed 121 relevant articles, and their findings were included.

Clinical applications of anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography: A systematic review

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a non-invasive method that provides the opportunity to examine tissues by taking cross-sectional images. OCT is increasingly being used to evaluate anterior segment (AS) pathologies. Swept-source (SS) OCT allows greater penetration and achieves better visualization of the internal configuration of AS tissues due to the longer wavelength employed and high scan speeds. We reviewed the utilization of AS SS-OCT in various conditions including glaucoma, ocular surface pathologies, iris tumors, refractive surgery, cataract surgery, and scleral diseases. A systematic literature search was carried out on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases between January 1, 2008, and September 1, 2022 using the following keywords: AS SS-OCT; dry eye and SS-OCT; ocular surface and SS-OCT; cornea and SS-OCT; dystrophy and SS-OCT; glaucoma and SS-OCT; ocular surface tumors and SS-OCT; conjunctival tumors and SS-OCT; refractive surgery and SS-OCT; cataract and SS-OCT; biometry and SS-OCT; sclera and SS-OCT; iris and SS-OCT; ciliary body and SS-OCT; artificial intelligence and SS-OCT. A total of 221 studies were included in this review. Review of the existing literature shows that SS-OCT offers several advantages in the diagnosis of AS diseases. Exclusive features of SS-OCT including rapid scanning, deeper tissue penetration, and better image quality help improve our understanding of various AS pathologies.

Comparing ocular biometry and autorefraction measurements from the Myopia Master with the IOLMaster 700 and the Huvitz HRK-8000A autorefractor

PURPOSE

To compare axial length (AL) and corneal radius (CR) measured with the Oculus Myopia Master and the Zeiss IOLMaster 700, and cycloplegic refractive error measured with the Myopia Master and the Huvitz Auto Ref/Keratometer (HRK-8000A).

METHODS

The study included both eyes of 74 participants (16 male), with a mean (SD) age of 22.8 (3.7) years. The parameters indicated were measured under cycloplegia with these instruments: Myopia Master (AL, CR and refractive error), IOLMaster 700 (AL and CR) and HRK-8000A (refractive error and CR). Bland-Altman plots with mixed effects 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used to assess the agreement in ocular biometry between the Myopia Master and the IOLMaster 700, and for refractive error between the Myopia Master and the HRK-8000A.

RESULTS

The analysis included 139 eyes, of which 52 were myopic (spherical equivalent refractive error, SER ≤ -0.50 D), 32 emmetropic and 55 hyperopic (SER ≥ 0.50 D). The 95% LoA for AL between the Myopia Master and IOLMaster 700 was -0.097 to 0.089 mm. There was no mean difference in AL [mean (SD) = -0.004 (0.047) mm, p = 0.34]. There was a significant difference in mean CR, with that measured with the Myopia Master being flatter than that found with the IOLMaster 700 [0.035 (0.028) mm, p < 0.001]. The 95% LoA for CR was -0.02 to 0.09 mm. Compared with HRK-8000A, the Myopia Master measured a significantly more negative SER [-0.19 (0.33) D, p < 0.001], with 95% LoA of -0.86 to 0.46 D.

CONCLUSION

The LoA for measurements of SER, CR and AL when comparing the Myopia Master with the HRK-8000A and the IOLMaster 700 were wider than deemed acceptable for making direct comparisons. This indicates that the instruments cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice or research.