Agreement of total corneal power between 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug tomography in normal and keratoconic patients

Comparison of ocular biometric parameters between two swept-source optical coherence tomography devices and Scheimpflug tomography in patients with cataract

AIM

To assess and compare the variations and agreements across different ocular biometric parameters using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and Scheimpflug tomography in patients diagnosed with cataract.

METHODS

This prospective case series was conducted at Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital. In total, 212 eyes from 212 patients scheduled for phacoemulsification were included. Eyes were evaluated preoperatively using two SS-OCT devices (IOLMaster700 and CASIA2) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam). Central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), aqueous depth (AQD), white-to-white distance (WTW), flat simulated keratometry (Kf), steep simulated keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), and total corneal keratometry (TKm) were measured. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and limits of agreement (LoA) widths were conducted to assess differences and correlations between devices.

RESULTS

All parameters, except for Ks, were significantly different. Pairwise comparison revealed no significant differences between keratometry obtained by IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam. LoA widths of all paired comparisons for Ks were >0.80 D. Except for WTW between IOLMaster 700 and CASIA2 and between CASIA2 and Pentacam, other Pearson's coefficients between devices showed a strong correlation (all r>0.95). The ICC of WTW (ICC=0.438, 95%CI 0.167-0.625) showed poor reliability. The reliability of CCT, ACD, and AQD was excellent (all ICC>0.95), whereas that of TKm was good (ICC=0.827, 95%CI 0.221-0.939). A significant linear correlation was also observed among devices.

CONCLUSION

The ocular parameters derived from the use of IOLMaster700, CASIA2, and Pentacam exhibit significant discrepancies; as such, measurements from these devices should not be deemed as interchangeable.

Repeatability and agreement of two ocular biometers with single and dual Scheimpflug cameras in keratoconus eyes

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of two different ocular biometers and Scheimpflug devices in keratoconus eyes.

METHODS

This prospective, comparative trial took place at the University hospital, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. We included eyes with keratoconus, one eye per patient, randomly selected. Measurements were taken with Galilei G6 (Ziemer, Switzerland) and Pentacam AXL (Oculus, Germany), three consecutive measurements each. Repeatability and agreement were evaluated for simulated keratometry (simK), astigmatism (simA), maximum keratometry (KMax) and its axis, total keratometry (TCP), axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and thinnest pachymetry (TCT).

RESULTS

Both devices showed an excellent repeatability with intra class correlation (ICC) of > 0.97 for all parameters. The 95% limits of repeatability (LoR95%) and agreement (LoA95%) were narrow for all parameters. The Galilei G6 had a narrower LoAR95% for TCT (2.1 μm vs. 4.6 μm), but a wider LoR95% for KMax (0.52D vs. 1.18D). No relevant difference was found for the other parameters. Agreement between the devices was good to moderate, especially for simK and TCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both devices show excellent repeatability with narrow LoR95% and high ICC for all parameters. The only relevant difference was found for KMax and TCT in favor of Pentacam AXL and Galilei G6, respectively. Agreement was good to moderate, and most parameters should not be considered interchangeable.

Impact of uncertainties in biometric parameters on intraocular lens power formula predicted refraction using a Monte-Carlo simulation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the uncertainty in the formula predicted refractive outcome REFU after cataract surgery resulting from measurement uncertainties in modern optical biometers using literature data for within-subject standard deviation Sw.

METHODS

This Monte-Carlo simulation study used a large dataset containing 16 667 preoperative IOLMaster 700 biometric measurements. Based on literature Sw values, REFU was derived for both the Haigis and Castrop formulae using error propagation strategies. Using the Hoya Vivinex lens (IOL) as an example, REFU was calculated both with (WLT) and without (WoLT) consideration of IOL power labelling tolerances.

RESULTS

WoLT the median REFU was 0.10/0.12 dpt for the Haigis/Castrop formula, and WLT it was 0.13/0.15 dpt. WoLT REFU increased systematically for short eyes (or high power IOLs), and WLT this effect was even more pronounced because of increased labelling tolerances. WoLT the uncertainty in the measurement of the corneal front surface radius showed the largest contribution to REFU, especially in long eyes (and low power IOLs). WLT the IOL power uncertainty dominated in short eyes (or high power IOLs) and the uncertainty of the corneal front surface in long eyes (or low power IOLs).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with published data on the formula prediction error of refractive outcome after cataract surgery, the uncertainty of biometric measures seems to contribute with ⅓ to ½ to the entire standard deviation. REFU systematically increases with IOL power and decreases with axial length.

Evaluation of corneal power from an AS-OCT thick lens model and ray tracing: reliability of the keratometer index

PURPOSE

To investigate and compare different strategies of corneal power calculations using keratometry, paraxial thick lens calculations and ray tracing.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

DESIGN

Retrospective single-center consecutive case series.

METHODS

Using a dataset with 9780 eyes of 9780 patients from a cataractous population the corneal front (Ra/Qa) and back (Rp/Qp) surface radius/asphericity, central corneal thickness (CCT), and entrance pupil size (PUP) were recorded using the Casia 2 tomographer. Beside keratometry with the Zeiss (PK Z ) and Javal (PK J ) keratometer index, a thick lens paraxial formula (PG) and ray tracing (PR) was implemented to extract corneal power for pupil sizes from 2 mm to 5 mm in steps of 1 mm and PUP.

RESULTS

With PUP PK Z /PK J overestimates the paraxial corneal power PG in around 97%/99% of cases and PR in around 80% to 85%/99%. PR is around 1/6 or 5/6 diopters (D) lower compared with PK Z or PK J . For a 2 mm pupil PR is around 0.20/0.91 D lower compared with PK Z /PK J and for a 5 mm pupil PR is comparable with PK Z (around 0.03 D lower) but around 0.70 to 0.75 D lower than PK J .

CONCLUSIONS

"True" values of corneal power are mostly required in lens power calculations before cataract surgery, and overestimation of corneal power could induce trend errors in refractive outcome with axial length and lens power if compensated with the effective lens position.

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.].

Repeatability of biometric measures from the IOLMaster 700 in a cataractous population

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the repeatability of biometric measures and also to assess the interactions between the uncertainties in these measures for use in an error propagation model, using data from a large patient cohort.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional non-randomised study we evaluated a dataset containing 3379 IOLMaster 700 biometric measurements taken prior to cataract surgery. Only complete scans with at least 3 successful measurements for each eye performed on the same day were considered. The mean (Mean) and standard deviations (SD) for each sequence of measurements were derived and analysed. Correlations between the uncertainties were assessed using Spearman rank correlations.

RESULTS

In the dataset with 677 eyes matching the inclusion criteria, the within subject standard deviation and repeatability for all parameters match previously published data. The SD of the axial length (AL) increased with the Mean AL, but there was no noticeable dependency of the SD of any of the other parameters on their corresponding Mean value. The SDs of the parameters are not independent of one another, and in particular we observe correlations between those for AL, anterior chamber depth, aqueous depth, lens thickness and corneal thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

The SD change over Mean for AL measurement and the correlations between the uncertainties of several biometric parameters mean that a simple Gaussian error propagation model cannot be used to derive the effect of biometric uncertainties on the predicted intraocular lens power and refraction after cataract surgery.

Repeatability and Interobserver Reproducibility of a Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography for Measurements of Anterior, Posterior, and Total Corneal Power

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this work is to evaluate the intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of corneal power measurements obtained with a swept-source optical coherence tomographer (CASIA 2, Tomey, Japan) in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A total of 67 right eyes from 67 healthy subjects were enrolled. Two experienced observers measured each eye three times consecutively with the CASIA 2. Corneal power values were recorded as simulated keratometry, anterior, posterior, and total corneal power. Parameters were flattest keratometry (Kf), steepest keratometry (Ks), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism magnitude, astigmatism power vectors J0 and J45. Intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of the CASIA 2 were assessed by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), test-retest repeatability (TRT), coefficients of variation (CoV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Double-angle plots were used for astigmatism vector analysis.

RESULTS

The CASIA 2 had high repeatability for all corneal power values, with Sw values ≤ 0.17 diopters (D), TRT ≤ 0.46 D, and ICCs ranging from 0.866 to 0.998. Interobserver reproducibility was also high, showing all Sw values ≤ 0.10 D, TRT ≤ 0.27 D, and ICCs ≥ 0.944. The reproducibility of the average of three consecutive measurements (Sw 0.01-0.10 D, TRT 0.03-0.27 D, ICC 0.944-0.998) was higher than the reproducibility of single measurements (Sw 0.01-0.17 D, TRT 0.03-0.47 D, ICC 0.867-0.996).

CONCLUSIONS

The CASIA 2 showed high intraobserver repeatability and interobserver reproducibility for anterior, posterior, and total corneal power measurements in 6.0-mm diameter area. In addition, we suggest that using the average of three consecutive measurements can improve reproducibility between observers, compared to single measurements only.

Prediction of corneal power vectors after cataract surgery with toric lens implantation-A vector analysis

BACKGROUND

Intraocular lenses are typically calculated based on a pseudophakic eye model, and for toric lenses (tIOL) a good estimate of corneal astigmatism after cataract surgery is required in addition to the equivalent corneal power. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between the preoperative IOLMaster (IOLM) and the preoperative and postoperative Casia2 (CASIA) tomographic measurements of corneal power in a cataractous population with tIOL implantation, and to predict total power (TP) from the IOLM and CASIA keratometric measurements.

METHODS

The analysis was based on a dataset of 88 eyes of 88 patients from 1 clinical centre before and after tIOL implantation. All IOLM and CASIA keratometric and total corneal power measurements were converted to power vector components, and the differences between preoperative IOLM or CASIA and postoperative CASIA measurements were assessed. Feedforward neural network and multivariate linear regression prediction algorithms were implemented to predict the postoperative total corneal power (as a reference for tIOL calculation) from the preoperative IOLM and CASIA keratometric measurements.

RESULTS

On average, the preoperative IOLM keratometric / total corneal power under- / overestimates the postoperative CASIA keratometric / real corneal power by 0.12 dpt / 0.21 dpt. The prediction of postoperative CASIA real power from preoperative IOLM or CASIA keratometry shows that postoperative total corneal power is systematically (0.18 dpt / 0.27 dpt) shifted towards astigmatism against the rule, which is not reflected by keratometry. The correlation of postoperative CASIA real power to the corresponding preoperative CASIA values is better than those as compared to the preoperative IOLM keratometry. However, there is a large variation from preoperative IOLM or CASIA keratometry to the postoperative CASIA real power of up to 1.1 dpt (95% confidence interval).

CONCLUSION

One of the challenges of tIOL calculation is the prediction of postoperative total corneal power from preoperative keratometry. Keratometric power restricted to a front surface measurement does not fully reflect the situation of corneal back surface astigmatism, which typically adds some extra against the rule astigmatism.

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.

Corneal thickness measurements with the RTVue, Casia-2, and Pentacam devices in patients with mild-to-moderate keratoconus: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

To compare the characteristics of corneal thickness measurements among the RTVue, Casia-2, and Pentacam in patients with mild-to-moderate keratoconus.

METHODS

We recruited 46 eyes of 46 patients diagnosed with mild-to-moderate keratoconus at our hospital between January and March 2022. The central corneal thickness (CCT) and thinnest corneal thickness (TCT) were measured using two optical coherence tomography (OCT) instruments (RTVue and Casia-2) and the more conventional Pentacam. Differences and correlations between the CCTs and TCTs, based on the device and influencing factors, were explored.

RESULTS

The CCTs were highly consistent among the groups (p = 0.434) and correlated with one another (p < 0.001). The TCTs measured by OCTs were thinner than those measured by the Pentacam (p < 0.001); however, all three devices were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The thinnest point location measurements with RTVue and Casia-2 differed significantly from the measurements with the Pentacam. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated a significant agreement between Pentacam and OCTs in TCT measurement (p < 0.001); the 95% limits of agreement were - 3.1 μm to + 33.1 μm for Pentacam and RTVue and - 8.6 μm to + 36.5 μm for Pentacam and Casia-2. RTVue and Casia-2 showed no difference in corneal thickness (p = 0.633) and thinnest point location measurement (p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified that the TCT measurement difference between the RTVue and Pentacam was related to the difference between the CCT and TCT (b = 0.490, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.033 to 0.948, p = 0.036), whereas the difference between the Casia-2 and Pentacam was related to the anterior radius for curvature (A) grade (b = 3.9, 95% CI: 1.753 to 6.074, p = 0.001), corneal pachymetry at the thinnest (C) grade (b = - 7.875, 95% CI: - 11.404 to - 4.346, p < 0.001), and the difference between the CCT and TCT (b = 0.425, 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.751, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

CCTs in patients with mild-to-moderate keratoconus were similar among all three devices, but the TCTs and the thinnest point locations were not. Furthermore, the TCT measurement differences between the OCT devices and the Pentacam were more pronounced in keratoconus cases with a steeper anterior surface, thicker TCTs, and a larger difference between the CCT and TCT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Number: 2021118-1. Retrospectively registered: September 01, 2021.

Comparison of Total Corneal Astigmatism between IOLMaster and Pentacam

Purpose. To compare the total corneal astigmatism (TCA) measured by IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam and to investigate the consistency of corneal keratometry (CK) measured by IOLMaster and Pentacam. Methods. Cataract patients were retrospectively enrolled in March and April, 2021. Retrospective analysis was performed on those patients with binocular and monocular CK measured by IOLMaster and Pentacam. Results. A total of 102 patients (204 eyes) were included, 64 of whom were female (62.75%). The flat (K1) and steep (K2) CK of anterior corneal surface (ACS) and flat (TK1) and steep (TK2) of total cornea measured with IOLMaster 700 were $44.16\pm 1.60\text{D}$ , $45.09\pm 1.68\text{D}$ , $44.12\pm 1.62\text{D}$ , and $45.14\pm 1.69\text{D}$ , respectively. Those measured with Pentacam were $44.31\pm 1.57\text{D}$ , $45.22\pm 1.65\text{D}$ , $44.15\pm 1.67\text{D}$ , and $45.19\pm 1.82\text{D}$ , respectively. The astigmatism of ACS and TCA were $-0.94\pm 0.63\text{D}$ and $-1.02\pm 0.69\text{D}$ ( $p<0.01$ ) in the IOLMaster group and $-0.90\pm 0.59\text{D}$ and $-1.05\pm 0.81\text{D}$ in the Pentacam group, respectively ( $p<0.01$ ). TCA measurement results of IOLMaster and Pentacam were consistent ( $\text{Pearson}=0.710$ , $p<0.01$ ), and there was no significant difference ( $p=0.591$ ). Conclusions. Total corneal astigmatism measured by IOLMaster was consistent with that measured by Pentacam. The difference between the astigmatism of anterior corneal surface and total cornea was detected in the measurement of IOLMaster and Pentacam, respectively.