Main Article Content
Purpose: To compare measurements of axial length obtained with A-scan and IOL Master. The study was design to collect the axial length values resulting from the application of both methods on the same eye (R.E.) and then to compare them.
Methodology Place and Duration of Study: 50 healthy patients selected randomly after visiting the clinic for daily routine examination. at the general hospital of Athens “Korgialenio – Benakio” were invited to participate in the study. The study took place in collaboration of University of West Attica Dept Biomedical Science Course Optics & Optometry with the general hospital of Athens “Korgialenio – Benakio”. Axial length measurements were obtained both by contact ultrasound (A‐scan 550 Sonomed, Lake Success, NY, USA) and by non‐contact laser interferometry (IOL Master 700 SWEPT Source Biometry). Two sets of measurements were repeated by a single examiner for each method.
Results: A total of 50 eyes in 50 patients were evaluated. All participants volunteer to participate in this study. Estimates of axial length obtained with the two techniques were highly correlated. Axial lengths obtained with the contact method (mean 24.23mm, SD 1.64mm) were lower than those obtained with the non‐contact method (mean 23.29mm, SD 1.59mm) and the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.150). The coefficient of variation was lower with non‐contact laser interferometry (6.58%) than with the ultrasound technique (6.76%).
Conclusion: Similar estimates of axial length are obtained using contact and non‐contact techniques, with the latter producing higher measurements results than the former. The A-scan and the non‐contact laser interferometry device (IOL Master 700) provide both reproducible results with similar the accuracy of measurements of axial length in the clinical setting.
Aristodemou P, Knox Cartwright NE, Sparrow JM,Johnston RL. “Formula choice: Hoffer Q, Holladay 1, orSRK/T and refractive outcomes in 8108 eyes after cataractsurgery with biometry by partial coherence interferometry”.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37(1):63-71.
Kanski JJ, Bowling B. “Clinical Ophtalmology a systematic approach”, 2011
El-Nafees R, Moawad A, Kishk H, Gaafar W. “Intra-ocular lens power calculation in patients with high axial my-opia before cataract surgery”. Saudi J Ophthalmol 2010;24(3):77–80
Astbury N. Balasubramanya Ramamurthy. “How to avoid mistakes in biometry”. Community Eye Health 2006;19(60):70–71
Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. “Partial coherence interferometry: A novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery”. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998; 126:524-534.
Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. “Teilkiha renz-Laser interferometrie: eine neue hochpra zise Biometrie-Methode zur Verbesserung der Refraktion nach Kataraktchirurgie”. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd. 1998; 212(suppl1):29.
Doctor KJ. “IOL calculations: when, how and which? Mastering the 329 techniques of IOL power calculations”. India: JAYPEE; 2009;36-45.
Fouad R.Nakhli “Comparison of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound measurements of the axial length of the eye” Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology Volume 28, Issue 4, October-December 2014;287-291.
Amany R Wissa, Sherein S Wahba, Maged M. Roshdy. Agreement and relationship between ultrasonic and partial coherence interferometry measurements of axial length and anterior chamber depth. Clin Ophthalmol. 2012;6:193–198.
Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. “Refractive outcome of cataract surgery using partial coherence interferometry and ultrasound biometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype II”. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:230–234.
Packer M, Fine IH, Hoffman RS, et al. “Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry; outcomes analysis”. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002; 28:239–242.
Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B. “Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis”. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000;238:765–773.
Akman, A., Asena, L. & Güngör, S. G. “Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500”. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 100, 1201–1205 (2016)
Cho, Y. J., Lim, T. H., Choi, K. Y. & Cho, B. J. “Comparison of ocular biometry using new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer with other devices”. Korean J. Ophthalmol. 2018;32:257.
Ventura BV, Ventura MC, Wang L, Koch DD, Weikert, MP. “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.
Higashiyama T, Mori H, Nakajima F, Ohji M. Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0196401.
Sikorski BL, Suchon P. OCT biometry (B-OCT): A new method for measuring ocular axial dimensions. J. Ophthalmol. 2019;1–10.
Kanclerz P, Hoffer KJ, Rozema JJ, Przewłócka K, Savini G. Repeatability and reproducibility of optical biometry implemented in a new optical coherence tomographer and comparison with a optical low-coherence reflectometer. J. Cataract Refract. Surg. 2019;45:1619–1624.
Tao Ming Thomas Chia, Minh T Nguyen, Hoon C. Jung. Comparison of optical biometry versus ultrasound biometry in cases with borderline signal-to-noise ratio. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12: 1757-1762.
Pateras E, Kouroupaki AI. “Comparison of Central Corneal Thickness Measurements between Angiovue Optical Coherence Tomography, Ultrasound Pachymetry and Ocular Biometry”. Ophthalmology Research: An International Journal. 2020; 13(4):1-9.
Alexander CL, Mujtaba AQ, Jay SP. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2008; 19:13–17.
Freeman G, Pesudovs K. The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with IOL Master. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005;83:439–442.