Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.58(12) > 1010679

TOOLS
Na, Lee, Doh, and Chung: A Comparison of Axial Length, Keratometry, and Measured White-to-white Using Different Devices
Original Article

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2017; 58(12): 1325-1332.

Published online: 14 December 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.12.1325

A Comparison of Axial Length, Keratometry, and Measured White-to-white Using Different Devices

Miri Na, MD1, Hyun Soo Lee, MD, PhD2, Sang Hee Doh, MD, PhD2, Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD1

1Saevit Eye Hospital, Goyang, Korea.

2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, St. Paul's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Sung Kun Chung, MD, PhD. Saevit Eye Hospital, #1065 Jungang-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10447, Korea. Tel: 82-31-900-7700, Fax: 82-31-900-7777, eyekun@gmail.com

Received 17 August 2017       Revised 20 September 2017       Accepted 20 November 2017

©2017 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

The Korean Ophthalmological Society

(open-access):

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 compare the accuracy and clinical usefulness of various devices by measuring axial length, keratometry, and white-to-white.

Methods

In 64 eyes of 56 cataract patients, axial length was measured using Galilei™, Lenstar®, and A-scans, and keratometry was measured using Galilei™, Lenstar®, and ARK. In 86 eyes of 74 cataract patients, white-to-white was measured using Galilei™ and Lenstar®.

Results

The average axial length measurements using Galilei™, Lenstar®, and A-scans were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.611). The 95% agreement range was the smallest at 0.22 mm for the Lenstar® and A-scans. The average mean K using Galilei™, Lenstar®, and ARK were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), but without a statistically significant difference (p = 0.657). The 95% agreement range was relatively small at 1.83 D for Lenstar® and ARK. The average white-to-white using Galilei™ and Lenstar® were significantly correlated (p < 0.001), with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.011). The 95% agreement range was 2.20 mm.

Conclusions

Axial length, keratometry, and white-to-white measured by different devices were highly correlated and were not statistically different; however, agreement was low between measurements. It is therefore important to consider these findings when using them equally.

Keywords: Axial length, Galilei™, Keratometry reading, Lenstar®, White to white

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 3 instruments for axial length (mm). (A) Galilei™, Lenstar®, (B) Galilei™, A-scan, (C) Lenstar®, A-scan. The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. SD = standard deviation.

jkos-58-1325-g001
Figure 2

Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 3 instruments for mean K(D), (A) Galilei™, Lenstar®, (B) Galilei™, ARK, (C) Lenstar®, ARK. The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. K = keratometry reading; SD = standard deviation.

jkos-58-1325-g002
Figure 3

Bland and Altman plots comparing the level of agreement between the 2 instruments for white to white (mm). The mean difference is represented by the solid line and the 95% limit of agreement are represented by the dotted lines. SD = standard deviation.

jkos-58-1325-g003
Table 1

Comparison of mean axial length among devices (mm)

jkos-58-1325-i001

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

*p-value is obtained from repeated measured analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Table 2

Mean difference, 95% limit of agreement (LoA), and Pearson correlation of axial length

jkos-58-1325-i002

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

*p-value is obtained from paired t-test; †p-value is obtained from Pearson correlation.

Table 3

Comparison of keratometry reading among devices (diopter)

jkos-58-1325-i003

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

K = keratometry reading.

*p-value is obtained from repeated measured analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Table 4

Mean difference, 95% limit of agreement (LoA), and Pearson correlation of keratometry reading

jkos-58-1325-i004

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

K = keratometry reading.

*p-value is obtained from paired t-test; †p-value is obtained from Pearson correlation.

Table 5

Comparison of White to white among devices (mm)

jkos-58-1325-i005

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

Table 6

Mean difference, 95% limit of agreement (LoA), and Pearson correlation of White to white

jkos-58-1325-i006

Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise indicated.

*p-value is obtained from paired t-test; †p-value is obtained from Pearson correlation.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

1. Olsen T. Prediction of the effective postoperative (intraocular lens) anterior chamber depth. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006; 32:419–424.
2. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chirapapaisan N, et al. Accuracy of Holladay 2 formula using IOLMaster parameters in the absence of lens thickness value. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013; 251:2563–2567.
3. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, et al. Agreement analysis of LENSTAR(R) with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond). 2011; 25:717–724.
4. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, et al. Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014; 98:1277–1281.
5. Ventura BV, Ventura MC, Wang L, et al. Comparison of biometry and intraocular lens power calculation performed by a new optical biometry device and a reference biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2017; 43:74–79.
6. Huang J, McAlinden C, Huang Y, et al. Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:43414. DOI: 10.1038/srep43414.
7. O'Donnell C, Hartwig A, Radhakrishnan H. Comparison of central corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth measured using LenStar(R) LS900, Pentacam, and Visante AS-OCT. Cornea. 2012; 31:983–988.
8. Uçakhan OÖ, Akbel V, Bıyıklı Z, Kanpolat A. Comparison of corneal curvature and anterior chamber depth measurements using the manual keratometer, Lenstar LS 900 and the Pentacam. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2013; 20:201–206.
9. Tappeiner C, Rohrer K, Frueh BE, et al. Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar(R) LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94:666–667.
10. Borrego-Sanz L, Saenz-Frances F, Bermudez-Vallecilla M, et al. Agreement between central corneal thickness measured using Pentacam, ultrasound pachymetry, specular microscopy and optic biometer Lenstar(R) LS 900 and the influence of intraocular pressure. Ophthalmologica. 2014; 231:226–235.
11. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU. Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009; 93:807–810.
12. Lee JW, Park SH, Seong MC, et al. Comparison of ocular biometry and postoperative refraction in cataract patients between Galilei™-G6(R) and IOL Master(R). J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2015; 56:515–520.
13. Shin MC, Chung SY, Hwang HS, Han KE. Comparison of two optical biometers. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93:259–265.
14. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992; 18:125–129.
15. Zhao J, Chen Z, Zhou Z, et al. Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar(R) and comparison with two other non-contact biometric devices in myopes. Clin Exp Optom. 2013; 96:92–99.
16. Huerva V, Ascaso FJ, Soldevila J, Lavilla L. Comparison of anterior segment measurements with optical low-coherence reflectometry and rotating dual Scheimpflug analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014; 40:1170–1176.
TOOLS
Similar articles