Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.54(8) > 1009450

TOOLS
Park, Hwang, and Chung: Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Obtained from Applanation and Optical Principle Devices
Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2013;54(8):1219-1226.

Published online: 7 September 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2013.54.8.1219

Comparison of Anterior Chamber Depth Obtained from Applanation and Optical Principle Devices

Yuli Park, MD, Hyung Bin Hwang, MD, Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD

Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, The Catholic University of Korea, Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital #10 63-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-713, Korea Tel: 82-2-3779-1150, Fax: 82-2-761-6869, E-mail: eyedoc@catholic.ac.kr

This study was presented as an E-poster at annual meeting of ESCRS, Sep, 2012.

Received 12 October 201226 March 2013       Accepted 20 June 2013

Copyright © 2013 Korean Ophthalmological Society

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the reproducibility and reliability of applanation A-scan ultrasonography (Pacscan 300A, Sonomed Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and optical measurements with IOL Master® (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), Pentacam® (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), and Orbscan II® (Orbtek Inc., Laredo, TX, USA) when measuring anterior chamber depth (ACD).

Methods

In this study of 188 eyes of 94 patients, ACD estimation prior to cataract surgery was preformed by the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master®, Pentacam®, and Orbscan II® optical methods. Repeatability from each device was evaluated by coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RM-ANOVA on Ranks was used to compare the differences in ACD among the devices. The Bland-Altman plot was performed to assess agreement in measurements between the devices.

Results

The mean ACD according to the applanation A-scan method and IOL Master®, Pentacam®, and Orbscan II® opti-cal methods were 2.89 ± 0.49 mm, 3.25 ± 0.45 mm, 3.21 ± 0.46 mm, and 3.19 ± 0.47 mm, respectively, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). The coefficient of variation for the 4 methods was 2.50% in the A-scan, 0.87% in the IOL Master®, 1.25% in the Pentacam®, and 1.04% with Orbscan II®, and reproducibility was higher with the optical principle devices. The correlation coefficient between A-scan and IOL Master® was 0.65, between IOL Master® and Pentacam® 0.91, between IOL Master® and Orbscan II® 0.90, between A-scan and Pentacam® 0.69, between A-scan and Orbscan II® 0.71, and between Pentacam® and Orbscan II® 0.93.

Conclusions

Applanation A-scan provided lower measurements for ACD compared with IOL Master®, Pentacam® and Orbscan II®. There was good agreement between results obtained with the latter 3 methods, and reproducibility was high with optical measurements. The coefficient of variation was low for IOL Master®.

Keywords: Anterior chamber depth, A-scan, IOL Master®, Orbscan II®, Pentacam®

References

1. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–9.
crossref
2. Holladay JT. Standardizing constants for ultrasonic biometry, kera-tometry, and intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 1997; 23:1356–70.
crossref
3. Alió JL, de la Hoz F, Pérez-Santonja JJ. . Phakic anterior cham-ber lenses for correction of myopia; a 7-year cumulative analysis of complications in 263 cases. Ophthalmology. 1999; 106:458–66.
4. Holladay JT. Refractive power calculations for intraocular lenses in the phakic eye. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993; 116:63–6.
crossref
5. Reddy AR, Pande MV, Finn P, El-Gogary H. Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOL master. J Cataract Refractive Surg. 2004; 30:1268–71.
6. Vetrugno M, Cardascia N, Cardia L. Anterior chamber depth meas-ured by two methods in myopic and hyperopic phakic IOL implant. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000; 84:1113–6.
crossref
7. Shyn KH, Lee HK, Kim HS, Chung TB. Biometric analysis of an-terior segment of the eye with scheimpflug camera according to the type of cataract. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1993; 34:105–10.
8. Choi JH, Roh GH. The reproducibility and accuracy of biometry parameter measurement from IOL master. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2004; 45:1665–75.
9. Kim HJ, Kim HJ, Joo CK. Comparison of IOL Master, A-scan and Orbscan II for measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2003; 44:1519–27.
10. Koranyi G, Lydahl E, Norrby S, Taube M. Anterior chamber depth measurement: A-scan versus optical methods. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:243–7.
crossref
11. Auffarth GU, Tetz MR, Biazid Y, Völcker HE. Measuring anterior chamber depth with the Orbscan Topography System. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1997; 23:1351–5.
crossref
12. Jung TB, Shyn KH. Biometric analysis of the normal aged eye with phacoemulsification method. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1992; 33:1060–4.
13. Rosa N, Lanza M, Borrelli M. . Comparision of central corneal thickness measured with Orbscan and Pentacam. J Refract Surg. 2007; 23:895–9.
14. Bae CY, Pae JH, Hong KY, Kim JD. A study on central corneal pa-chymetry maps with Orbscan Corneal Pachymetry System in Myopic eyes. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2002; 43:1597–604.
15. Ryu HW, Kim RK, Chung SK. Comparison of A-scan, Scheimpflug camera, and Orbscan for measurement of anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2006; 47:1287–91.
16. Su PF, Lo AY, Hu CY, Chang SW. Anterior chamber depth meas-urement in phakic and pseudophakic eyes. Optom Vis Sci. 2008; 85:1193–200.
crossref
17. Sheng H, Bottjer CA, Bullimore MA. Ocular component measure-ment using the Zeiss IOLMaster. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81:27–34.
crossref
18. Yi CH, Choi SH, Chung ES, Chung TY. Accuracy of the Haigis for-mula based on axial length and anterior chamber depth. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2011; 52:175–81.
crossref

Figure 1.
Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by each device. (A) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by A scan and IOL MasterⓇ. (B) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by A scan and PentacamⓇ. (C) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by A scan and Orbscan IIⓇ. (D) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by IOL MasterⓇ and PentacamⓇ. (E) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by IOL MasterⓇ and Orbscan IIⓇ. (F) Correlation plot of anterior chamber depth measured by Orbscan IIⓇ and pentacam.
jkos-54-1219f1.tif
Figure 2.
Bland-Altman plots showing differences in anterior chamber depth measurements between devices. The upper and lower dashed lines indicate 95% limits of agreement, and the solid line indicates the mean.
jkos-54-1219f2.tif
Table 1.
Age and Sex distribution
Age (years) No. of Eyes Total
Male Female
30-39 4 4 8
40-49 14 12 26
50-59 22 24 46
60-69 32 32 64
70-79 12 14 26
>80 8 10 18
Total 92 96 188
Table 2.
Anterior cham correlation coefficient
A scan IOL Master® Pentacam® Orbscan II® p-value
ACD (mm) 2.89 ± 0.49 3.25 ± 0.45 3.21 ± 0.46 3.19 ± 0.47 0.138
CV (%) 2.50% 0.87% 1.25% 1.04%
ICC 0.967 0.997 0.988 0.982

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Significant difference among the methods (p < 0.01, ANOVA test).

CV = coefficient of variation; ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; SD = standard deviation.

Table 3.
Results for the comparison of the anterior chamber depth measurements among devices
Differences between Devices Mean (mm) SD (mm) Upper LoA (mm) Lower LoA (mm) RM-ANOVA on Ranks (p)
A scan vs. IOL Master® 0.295 0.3854 0.694 -0.105 0.045
A scan vs. Pentacam® -0.15 0.3491 0.095 -0.395 0.041
A scan vs. Orbscan II® -0.187 0.2461 0.246 -0.619 0.044
IOL Master® vs. Pentacam® -0.115 0.1349 0.527 -0.758 <0.001
IOL Master® vs. Orbscan II® 0.178 0.2543 0.775 -0.418 0.027
Pentacam® vs. Orbscan II® 0.039 0.2013 0.371 -0.449 0.038

SD = standard deviation; LoA = 95% limits of agreement; RM-ANOVA on Ranks = repeated measures analysis of variance on ranks; 6 comparisons were made for each device pair. The mean difference, SD, upper LoA, lower LoA, RM-ANOVA on Ranks are displayed for each pair of devices.

TOOLS
Similar articles