Comparison of measurements and calculated lens power using three biometers: a Scheimpflug tomographer with partial coherence interferometry and two swept source optical coherence tomographers

PURPOSE

To compare the biometric measurements obtained from the Pentacam AXL Wave, IOLMaster 700, and ANTERION and calculate the recommended intraocular lens power using the Barrett Formulae.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients who underwent biometry using the Pentacam AXL Wave, IOLMaster 700, and ANTERION. Flat keratometry (K1), steep keratometry (K2), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and axial length (AL) from each device were measured and compared. These parameters were used to calculate the recommended IOL powers using the Barrett formula.

RESULTS

The study included 252 eyes of 153 patients. The IOLMaster had the highest acquisition rate among the two biometers. The Pentacam obtained the shortest mean AL, the IOLMaster measured the highest mean keratometry values, and the ANTERION measured the highest mean ACD. In terms of pairwise comparisons, keratometry and axial length were not significantly different between the Pentacam-IOLMaster and ANTERION-IOLMaster groups, while the rest of the pairwise comparisons were statistically significant. In nontoric and toric eyes, 35-45% of patients recommended the same sphere of IOL power. In another 30-40%, the Pentacam and ANTERION recommended an IOL power one step greater than that of the IOLMaster-derived data. 50% of the study population recommended the same toric-cylinder IOL power.

CONCLUSIONS

The Pentacam AXL Wave, IOLMaster 700, and ANTERION can reliably provide data for IOL power calculations; however, these data are not interchangeable. In nontoric and toric eyes, 35-45% of cases recommended the same sphere IOL power, and in another 30-40%, the Pentacam and ANTERION recommended one-step higher IOL power than the IOLMaster-derived data. In targeting emmetropia, selecting the first plus IOL power is advisable when using the Pentacam and ANTERION to approximate the IOL power calculations recommended by the IOLMaster 700.

IOL power calculation in long eyes: Selection of the best axial length adjustement factor using the most common formulas

Purpose

Comparing IOL power calculation formulas in long eyes (AL≥26.00 mm) to find the best axial length (AL) adjustment/IOL power calculation formula combination.

Design

Retrospective, comparative, case-series.

Participants

Patients with long eyes that underwent cataract surgery.

Methods

five-hundred-fifty-four eyes of 554 patients were examined before and after standard phacoemulsification without complications. Eyes were subdivided in 3 groups according to AL: 26.00≤AL<28.00 mm, 28.00≤AL<30.00 mm, AL≥30.00 mm. Eight formulas that do not require anterior chamber depth (ACD) were evaluated: Barrett Universal II (BUII), Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) 2.0, Ladas Super Formula (LSF), Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, SRKT, T2 and T2.2. The lens constant of ULIB database and IOLCon database were used. Each formula was analyzed by using uncorrected AL (ALu) and following AL adjustments: Wang-Koch 1 (wk1), wk2, wk polinomial (wk-pol), estimated Cooke modified axial length (CMALe) and ALc correcting factor.

Main outcome measures

Mean absolute error (MAE), median absolute error (MedAE) and percentage of eyes within ±0.50 and ± 1.00 diopters (D) of prediction error.

Results

T2-ALu gave best outcome when 26.00 mm ≤ AL<28.00 mm. LSF-ALu, BUII-ALu, EVO 2.0-ALu, Holladay 1-wk-pol and T2.2-CMALe represented valid alternatives. EVO 2.0-ALc gave best outcomes when 28.00 mm ≤ AL<30.00 mm. Other thick-lens or hybrid artificial-intelligence-vergence based formulas (BUII-ALu, LSF-CMALe) and Holladay 1-wk2 demonstrated greater reliability compared to thin lens-based formulas. EVO 2.0-CMALe gave best outcomes when AL≥30.00 mm. Holladay 1-wk-pol e T2.2-wk1 represented valid alternatives (all p < 0.050). LSF could fail in 50 % of cases without ACD when AL≥30.00 mm.

Conclusions

Choosing the best AL adjustment/IOL power calculation formula combination for each AL subrange, can improve refractive outcomes in patients with long eyes that undergo cataract surgery.

Current concepts in the management of cataract with keratoconus

This review analyzed all pertinent articles on keratoconus (KCN) and cataract surgery. It covers preoperative planning, intraoperative considerations, and postoperative management, with the aim of providing a simplified overview of treating such patients. Preoperatively, the use of corneal cross-linking, intrastromal corneal ring segments, and topo-guided corneal treatments can help stabilize the cornea and improve the accuracy of biometric measurements. It is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of traditional techniques such as penetrating keratoplasty and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty, as well as newer stromal augmentation techniques, to choose the most appropriate surgical approach. Obtaining reliable measurements can be difficult, especially in the advanced stages of the disease. The choice between toric and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) should be carefully evaluated. Monofocal IOLs are a better choice in patients with advanced disease, and toric lenses can be used in mild and stable KCN. Intraoperatively, the use of a rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens can overcome the challenge of image distortion and loss of visual perspective. Postoperatively, patients may need updated RGP or scleral lenses to correct the corneal irregular astigmatism. A thorough preoperative planning is crucial for good surgical outcomes, and patients need to be informed regarding potential postoperative surprises. In conclusion, managing cataracts in KCN patients presents a range of challenges, and a comprehensive approach is essential to achieve favorable surgical outcomes.

The effect of implantable collamer Lens V4c on ocular biometric measurements and intraocular lens power calculation based on Pentacam-AXL and IOLMaster 500

Background

To investigate the possible effect of implantable collamer lens (ICL) V4c on ocular biometric measurements by a new biometer Pentacam-AXL and partial coherence interferometry (PCI)-based IOLMaster 500 and intraocular lens power calculation using fourth-generation formula.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent ICL (EVO-V4c, STAAR Surgical Co. Nidau, Switzerland) implantation surgery from September 2020 to November 2021. The Pentacam-AXL and IOLMaster 500 biometers were used to measure axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), white to white (WTW), and central corneal thickness (CCT) values before and at least 2 months after ICL V4c implantation. The IOL power was calculated using the Barrett Universal II formula.

Results

The study included 45 eyes in 28 patients. There was a significant increase in ALs (average 0.03 ± 0.07 mm, p = 0.01) and a significant decrease of ACDs (average 0.19 ± 0.17 mm, p < 0.001) based on Pentacam-AXL. Similar changes in ALs and ACDs were also found in IOLMaster 500. In addition, the difference in WTWs in the two devices and that of CCTs in Pentacam-AXL were statistically significant. However, the preoperative and postoperative K1 and K2 were separately comparable using either device. The IOL power calculated by the Barrett Universal II formula did not change significantly either by the software built in Pentacam-AXL or by manually putting the parameters of the IOLMaster 500 into the formula manually (p = 0.058, p = 0.675, respectively).

Conclusions

Ocular parameters including ALs, ACDs, WTWs, and CCTs using a new Pentacam-AXL and standard PCI-based IOLMaster 500 changed significantly before and after the ICL V4c implantation, while IOL power prediction using the Barrett Universal II formula was little affected.

Agreement analysis of Lenstar with other four techniques of biometry before cataract surgery

PURPOSE

To test whether some biometry measurements provided by the Lenstar LS900 compared well with the AL-Scan, Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera, Ultrasound Biomicroscopy (UBM) and Tomey EM-3000.

METHODS

Two hundred and one patients having routine cataract surgery had standard preoperative assessment. In this clinical study, the axis length (AL) and lens thickness (LT) were taken by Lenstar LS900 and AL-Scan; anterior chamber depth (ACD) was taken by Lenstar LS900, A-Scan, Pentacam and UBM; central corneal thickness (CCT) was taken by Lenstar LS900, Pentacam and Tomey EM-3000. The results were compared using a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test and Pearson correlation calculations. Agreement was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

The highest correlation was found between Lenstar and AL-Scan for AL (r = 0.975; P < 0.001). For LT measurements, the correlation between these two devices was also good (r = 0.699; P < 0.001). Excellent correlations were showed between Lenstar and Pentacam or UBM for ACD (r = 0.948, 0.704, respectively, both P < 0.001), but not between Lenstar and AL-Scan (r = 0.453, P < 0.001). The correlations of CCT between Lenstar and Pentacam or Tomey EM-3000 were both excellent (r = 0.817, 0.882, respectively, both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In phakic eyes of cataract patients, measurements of AL, LT, ACD and CCT from Lenstar LS900 yielded results that correlated very well with other clinical instruments.

Effect of Implantable Collamer Lens on Anterior Segment Measurement and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Based on IOLMaster 700 and Sirius

Purpose

To investigate the possible effect of an implantable collamer lens (ICL) on ocular biometrics and intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

Methods

Ocular measurements were taken preoperatively and at the two-month follow-up using IOLMaster 700 and Sirius in 85 eyes (43 patients) who had previously undergone ICL surgery. IOL power was calculated using either IOLMaster 700 (Barrett Universal II formula) or Sirius (ray-tracing). All data were compared using the paired t-test.

Results

The difference between preoperative and postoperative anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), and keratometry on the steep axis (K2) measured by IOLMaster 700 was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In 11 of 85 eyes, IOLMaster misjudged the anterior surface of the ICL as that of the lens, leading to an error in ACD and LT. There were no significant differences between preoperative and postoperative axial length (AL) (p = 0.223), white to white (WTW) (p = 0.100), keratometry on flat axis (K1) (p = 0.117), or central corneal thickness (CCT) (p = 0.648), measured using IOLMaster. The difference in IOL power calculated using the Barrett II formula was significant (p = 0.013). Regression analysis showed that AL and K had the greatest influence on IOL calculation (p < 0.001), and ACD and LT had less influence (p = 0.002, p = 0.218, respectively). K1 and K2 were modified to exclude the influence of K2, and modified IOLs showed no difference between pre and postoperation (p = 0.372). Preoperative and postoperative ACD measured using Sirius were significantly different (p < 0.001); however, the IOL power calculated using ray-tracing technology showed no significant differences (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

The ocular biometric apparatus may misjudge the anterior surface of the lens, resulting in measurement errors of ACD and LT, which has little effect on the calculation of IOL power when using IOLMaster 700 (Barrett Universal II formula) and Sirius (ray-tracing).

Agreement of predicted intraocular lens power using swept-source optical coherence tomography and partial coherence interferometry

PURPOSE

To analyze the agreement of the predicted intraocular lens (IOL) power obtained with ANTERION, IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam AXL biometers.

METHODS

We calculated the monofocal and trifocal IOL power using the SRK/T, Haigis, Barrett Universal II and Hoffer Q formulas for 106 eyes. IOL power agreement between devices was evaluated using the Bland-Altman method.

RESULTS

We found significant differences between biometers comparisons (p < 0.001). ANTERION and IOLMaster 700 did not produce significant IOL power differences (p > 0.05), with the same outcomes for medium- and long-eyes. No significant differences were found using the SRK/T, Haigis, or Hoffer Q formulas for short-eyes (p > 0.1). However, Barrett Universal II formula produced significant differences (p < 0.05) and these differences lay between the ANTERION and Pentacam AXL. ANTERION versus IOLMaster 700 comparison showed limits of agreement (LoA) varying from 1.1071D in SRK/T monofocal medium-eyes to 1.6828D in Hoffer Q trifocal all-eyes. The largest LoA (about 3.0D) was found for short-eyes when comparing the Pentacam AXL with the other two devices.

CONCLUSIONS

These devices provided statistically significant but clinically insignificant mean differences in predicted IOL power. However, wide LoA values suggest that for specific eyes these outcomes could be clinically significant.

Agreement Between Two Optical Biometers Based on Large Coherence Length SS-OCT and Scheimpflug Imaging/Partial Coherence Interferometry

PURPOSE

To evaluate the agreement between measurements obtained with a new optical biometer (Argos; Movu Inc) using large coherence length swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and those obtained with an optical biometer with a rotating Scheimpflug camera, combined with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) (Pentacam AXL; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH) in adults.

METHODS

The following measurements were examined and evaluated: axial length, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), mean keratometry, J₀ and J₄₅ vectors, and corneal diameter. Measurements with the two biometers were conducted in triplicate per instrument in a random order by the same examiner. Paired t tests were employed to compare the difference between the two devices. The Bland-Altman method was implemented to assess their agreement.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were enrolled in the study. The differences between the Scheimpflug/PCI-based biometer and the SS-OCT biometer were as follows: -0.02 ± 0.05 mm for axial length, 1.15 ± 5.79 µm for CCT, -0.04 ± 0.04 mm for ACD, -0.28 ± 0.16 diopters (D) for mean keratometry, 0.01 ± 0.11 D for J₀, -0.02 ± 0.10 D for J₄₅, and -1.03 ± 0.62 mm for corneal diameter. Bland-Altman plots showed narrow ranges in axial length, CCT, ACD, mean keratometry, and J₀ and J₄₅, which implied excellent agreement between the two biometers. Corneal diameter displayed poor agreement, with a 95% limits of agreement ranging from -2.25 to 0.19 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Excellent agreement was established between the measurements provided by the new optical biometer based on SS-OCT and the optical biometer using Scheimpflug imaging and PCI, except for corneal diameter. [J Refract Surg. 2020;36(7):459-465.].

Lenstar LS 900 versus Pentacam-AXL: analysis of refractive outcomes and predicted refraction

Analysis of refractive outcomes, using biometry data collected with a new biometer (Pentacam-AXL, OCULUS, Germany) and a reference biometer (Lenstar LS 900, HAAG-STREIT AG, Switzerland), in order to assess differences in the predicted and actual refraction using different formulas. Prospective, institutional study, in which intraocular lens (IOL) calculation was performed using the Haigis, SRK/T and Hoffer Q formulas with the two systems in patients undergoing cataract surgery between November 2016 and August 2017. Four to 6 weeks after surgery, the spherical equivalent (SE) was derived from objective refraction. Mean prediction error (PE), mean absolute error (MAE) and the median absolute error (MedAE) were calculated. The percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, ± 0.50, ± 1.00, and ± 2.00 D of MAE was determined. 104 eyes from 76 patients, 35 males (46.1%), underwent uneventful phacoemulsification with IOL implantation. Mean SE after surgery was − 0.29 ± 0.46 D. Mean prediction error (PE) using the SRK/T, Haigis and Hoffer Q formulas with the Lenstar was significantly different (p > 0.0001) from PE calculated with the Pentacam in all three formulas. Percentage of eyes within ± 0.25 D MAE were larger with the Lenstar device, using all three formulas. The difference between the actual refractive error and the predicted refractive error is consistently lower when using Lenstar. The Pentacam-AXL user should be alert to the critical necessity of constant optimization in order to obtain optimal refractive results.

Intraocular Lens Power Formulas, Biometry, and Intraoperative Aberrometry: A Review

The refractive outcome of cataract surgery is influenced by the choice of intraocular lens (IOL) power formula and the accuracy of the various devices used to measure the eye (including intraoperative aberrometry [IA]). This review aimed to cover the breadth of literature over the previous 10 years, focusing on 3 main questions: (1) What IOL power formulas currently are available and which is the most accurate? (2) What biometry devices are available, do the measurements they obtain differ from one another, and will this cause a clinically significant change in IOL power selection? and (3) Does IA improve refractive outcomes? A literature review was performed by searching the PubMed database for articles on each of these topics that identified 1313 articles, of which 166 were included in the review. For IOL power formulas, the Kane formula was the most accurate formula over the entire axial length (AL) spectrum and in both the short eye (AL, ≤22.0 mm) and long eye (AL, ≥26.0 mm) subgroups. Other formulas that performed well in the short-eye subgroup were the Olsen (4-factor), Haigis, and Hill-radial basis function (RBF) 1.0. In the long-eye group, the other formulas that performed well included the Barrett Universal II (BUII), Olsen (4-factor), or Holladay 1 with Wang-Koch adjustment. All biometry devices delivered highly reproducible measurements, and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric variables between devices. The differences seen resulted in minimal clinically significant effects on IOL power selection. The main difference found between devices was the ability to measure successfully through dense cataracts, with swept-source OCT-based machines performing better than partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry devices. Intraoperative aberrometry generally improved outcomes for spherical and toric IOLs in eyes both with and without prior refractive surgery when the BUII and Hill-RBF, Barrett toric calculator, or Barrett True-K formulas were not used. When they were used, IA did not result in better outcomes.

A review of imaging modalities for detecting early keratoconus

OBJECTIVES

Early identification of keratoconus is imperative for preventing iatrogenic corneal ectasia and allowing for early corneal collagen cross-linking treatments to potentially halt progression and decrease transplant burden. However, early diagnosis of keratoconus is currently a diagnostic challenge as there is no uniform screening criteria. We performed a review of the current literature to assess imaging modalities that can be used to help identify subclinical keratoconus.

METHODS

A Pubmed database search was conducted. We included primary and empirical studies for evaluating different modalities of screening for subclinical keratoconus.

RESULTS

A combination of multiple imaging tools, including corneal topography, tomography, Scheimpflug imaging, anterior segment optical coherence tomography, and in vivo confocal microscopy will allow for enhanced determination of subclinical keratoconus. In patients who are diagnostically borderline using a single screening criteria, use of additional imaging techniques can assist in diagnosis. Modalities that show promise but need further research include polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography, Brillouin microscopy, and atomic force microscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of early keratoconus can reduce risk of post-refractive ectasia and reduce transplantation burden. Though there are no current uniform screening criterion, multiple imaging modalities have shown promise in assisting with the early detection of keratoconus.

Comparison of Biometry Measurements Using Standard Partial Coherence Interferometry versus New Scheimpflug Tomography with Integrated Axial Length Capability

Purpose

To compare biometry measurements obtained by a partial interferometer biometer (IOLMaster 500) to the new Scheimpflug tomography with an integrated axial length biometer module (Pentacam AXL).

Patients and Methods

Cataract patients who underwent biometric measurements with the IOL Master 500 and the Pentacam AXL from July to November 2017 were enrolled in this study. Comparisons were performed for axial length (AL), keratometry (K), and anterior chamber depth (ACD). The Pearson correlation coefficient and the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. Paired Student’s t-tests and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the differences between devices.

Results

One hundred and sixty-six eyes of 92 patients were analyzed. There were no statistically significant differences in AL (p=0.558) or flat K (p=0.196) values between the IOL Master 500 and Pentacam AXL measurements. Statistically significant differences were found between the two devices with respect to steep K, ACD, and mean K measurements (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Both devices provided similar measurements of AL and flat K, though there were statistically significant differences in ACD, steep K, and mean K measurements.