Original Article
Agreement
between Swept Source OCT Based and Scheimpflug / Placido Based Biometry Devices
Aamir
Asrar, Bisma Ikram, Hina Khan, Maha Asrar
Pak J Ophthalmol 2017, Vol. 33, No. 2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
See
end of article for authors
affiliations …..……………………….. Correspondence
to: Hina Khan Consultant Ophthalmologist, Head of Ophthalmic Diagnostic
Department, Amanat Eye Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan Email: drhina@amanathospital.com |
Purpose: To assess the agreement between a
swept source OCT based IOL Master 700 biometer and a dual Scheimpflug ray tracing
analyser, Galilei G6. to measure various parameters of biometry in
cataractous eyes. Study Design:
Prospective Cross Sectional. Place and Duration of Study: Amanat Eye Hospital, Islamabad from April 2016 to June 2016. Material and Methods: The 206 eyes of 110 patients scheduled for
cataract extraction (consecutive sampling) were subjected to scanning by both
devices by a single trained operator. Measurements recorded by each machine included
keratometry (K), axial length (AL), astigmatism, anterior chamber depth
(ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT), white to white
(WTW) and intraocular lens (IOL) power. The statistical package for social sciences
software (SPSS version 22) and microsoft excel 2010 were applied to organize
and tabulate the data collected. Paired T test was applied with 95%
confidence interval to determine the association between parameters
calculated with IOL Master 700 and Galilei 6. Results: The mean age was 62.74 years
(±12.78) SD. In the sample of 206, frequency of IOL Master 700 failure was 3
(1.46%) and frequency of Galilei 6 failure was 59 (28.6%). High correlation
was seen in CCT (r = 0.976), WTW Conclusion: Significant disagreement between these two devices was noted
and hence they cannot be used interchangeably Keywords: Biometry; Swept Source OCT based IOL
Master 700; Galilei G6; Intraocular Lens; Target
Refraction. |
Cataract extraction in recent times has
achieved unparalleled sophistication in surgical technique as well as IOL
design. This advancement necessitates accurate measurement of biometric
parameters of the eye in order to correctly determine the IOL power required
for optimal visual results. Modern optical biometry devices use either partial
coherence interferometry (PCI) or optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) to
measure parameters such as axial length, lens thickness and anterior chamber
depth1. Additionally incorporated techniques can also enable keratometry2.
The IOL Master 500 (Carl Zeiss
Meditec) is considered the gold standard for modern biometry devices3-6.
Recently, the manufactures of IOL Master 500 have introduced the
first-of-its-kind swept source OCT based biometric device, the IOL Master 7007.
Several studies conducted in different settings, compared different biometric
devices to seek the agreement between them8-10. In this study, the
IOL Master 700 was compared with the Galilei G6 (Zeimer Switzerland) to seek agreement between these two devices that work on very
different principles to measure the same parameters i.e. K readings, axial
length, lens thickness, ACD and CCT. Most importantly the IOL power estimate
for achieving emmetropia provided by both devices was compared. Measurement
failure rates for these devices were also recorded.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All the patients referred to the diagnostics
department, Amanat eye hospital Islamabad (equipped with both technologies) for
biometry from April 2016 to June 2016 were included in this study. This
prospective cross sectional study followed the tenets of Declaration of
Helsinki. Ethical review board of hospital approved the protocols of this
study. All the participants were informed about the nature and purpose of the
study.
Consecutive sampling technique was used to
recruit the participants. A prior checkup was done, to ensure a good eye
health, by an ophthalmologist. Patients with previous refractive or intraocular
surgery, any ocular diseases that may hinder vision or have a bearing on post
operative refraction such as keratoconus, glaucoma, posterior staphyloma,
corneal pathologies, optic atrophy, retinopathy, and silicon oil filled eye were
excluded. Parameters of 206 eyes of 110 patients were taken for sample.
Measurements parameter were included Central corneal thickness (CCT),
white-to-white (WTW), Flat keratometric value (K1), Steep keratometric
Value (K2), mean keratometry (Kavg.), anterior chamber
depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), axial length (AL) and IOL power. To avoid any
bias biometry were performed by single trained ophthalmic technologist. Both
machines were calibrated prior according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
SRK-T formula was used to calculate the final IOL power with both IOL Master
700 and Galilei-6. The reason of choosing SRK-T was surgeon comfort level with this
formula and also its benefits in shorter and longer eyes in predicting a target
refraction ±1.0D11. IOL Master 700 measures 2.5 mm central corneal
zone while the Galilei G6 measures 3.0 mm central corneal zone. Failure rate
with both devices was recorded and cataract type was graded into nuclear (N),
cortical (C) and posterior subcapsular (PSC) cataract.
The statistical Package
for social Sciences software (SPSS version 22) and Microsoft Excel 2010 were
applied to organize and tabulate the data collected. Paired T test was applied
with 95% confidence interval to determine the association between parameters
calculated with IOL Master 700 and Galilei G6.
RESULTS
There were 206 eyes of 110 patients; the
mean age was 62.74 years (±12.78) SD; male participants were 49 (44.54%) and
female participants were 61 (55.45%). In the sample of 206, frequency of IOL
Master 700 failure was 3 (1.46%) and frequency of Galilei G6 failure was 59
(28.6%). The IOL Master 700 and Galilei 6 provided comparable mean CCT
measurements and difference was found to be insignificant (p = 0.854). The mean
difference of WTW was found to be significant (p = 0.001). Similarly,
mean difference in keratometry measurements was found to be highly significant
along different meridian (p < 0.001, n = 206). The mean difference between
ACD measurements was significantly high (p = 0.001, n = 198) (Table 1) (Figure
1).
The mean difference between lens thickness
was 0.033 mm which is insignificant (p = 0.079). Similarly, mean difference
between axial lengths was 0.39 ±2.941mm, this difference was not statistically
significant (p = 0.11). Moderate correlation existed between IOL Master 700 and
Galilei 6 (r = 0.39) in measuring axial lengths. The IOL power measured with
IOL Master 700 was 0.437 ± 1.436D greater on average than measured with Galilei
6. This difference is highly significant with p < 0.001, n = 144 (Table 1)
(Figure 1).
The predictability of
the IOL power calculation with the IOL Master 700, and Galilei 6 was similar
(using the SRK/T formula and the A-constant recommended by the manufacturers) in
26 eyes only, which makes it 18.05% of total sample size. The difference of
0.50 D was found in 71 eyes (49.31%); 1.00D was present in 25 eyes (17.36%);
1.5 D difference was found in 21 eyes (14.58%); and 2.50 D difference was
observed in 1 eye (0.69%) (Table 2).
Table 1: Mean
Differences and SD of all parameters from both optical biometers, correlation
and P value obtained from Paired T Test.
Parameter |
N |
IOL Master 700 Mean ±SD |
Galilei 6 Mean ±SD |
Correlation |
Mean ± SD difference (IOL Master 700 –Galilei 6) |
Paired T test, P value (α
= 0.05, 95% CI) |
Central corneal thickness (CCT) (µm) |
206 |
553.72
± 34.9 |
553.84
± 29.0 |
r = 0.976 |
-0.118
± 9.119 |
-0.185,
p=0.854 |
White-to-white (WTW) (mm) |
206 |
11.96
± 0.46 |
12.03
± 0.46 |
r = 0.731 |
-0.077
± 0.337 |
-3.23,
p=0.001 |
Flat Keratometric value (K1) (D) |
206 |
43.23
± 1.847 |
43.49
± 1.82 |
r = 0.974 |
-0.253
± 0.422 |
-8.483,
p<0.001 |
Steep keratometric value (K2) (D) |
206 |
44.12
± 1.91 |
44.38
± 1.92 |
r = 0.969 |
-0.263
± 0.48 |
-7.767,
p<0.001 |
Average Keratometry (Kavg.) (D) |
206 |
43.67±
1.85 |
43.93
± 1.85 |
r = 0.978 |
-0.259
± 0.387 |
-9.518,
p<0.001 |
Anterior chamber depth (ACD) (mm) |
198 |
3.26
± 0.451 |
3.32
± 0.479 |
r = 0.876 |
-0.057
± .234 |
-3.412,
p=0.001 |
Lens thickness (LT) (mm) |
153 |
4.32
± 0.766 |
4.28
± 0.808 |
r = 0.958 |
0.033
± 0.232 |
1.77, p=0.079 |
Axial Length (AL) (mm) |
147 |
24.33
± 3.16 |
23.94
± 1.621 |
r = 0.390 |
0.39
± 2.941 |
1.609,
p=0.110 |
IOL Power (D) |
144 |
20.31
± 2.758 |
19.87
± 3.207 |
r = 0.895 |
0.437
± 1.436 |
3.656,
p<0.001 |
Table 2: Difference
in IOL powers, frequencies and percentages.
Difference in IOL power (IOL Master 700 – Galilei-6) |
n = 144 |
Percentage (%) |
0 D (no difference) |
26 |
18.05 |
+0.50 D |
71 |
49.31 |
+1.0 D |
25 |
17.36 |
+1.5 D |
21 |
14.58 |
+2.5 D |
1 |
0.69 |
Failure rate of IOL
Master 700 was 1.46% and Galilei G6 was 28.6%. The highest failure rate was
observed in grade 4 Posterior sub capsular cataract with both biometric devices
and then failure was observed in nuclear cataract (Table 3).
Table
3: Failure
rate and type of cataract: number and percentages.
Biometry Device |
Cortical (C) n (%) |
Nuclear (N) n (%) |
Posterior Subcapsular (PSC) n (%) |
IOL Master 700 |
0
(0.00) |
1
(33.3) |
2
(6.67) |
Galilei G6 |
9
(15.25) |
21
(35.59) |
29 (49.15) |
DISCUSSION
The advancement in
cataract extraction techniques has been so tremendous in recent years that it
is no longer considered a surgical procedure meant solely for removal of lens
opacification but rather a method of acquiring near perfect visual result
catering in addition for any refractive abnormalities that existed
preoperatively.
Fig. 1: Mean Difference across all eyes in CCT, WTW, K1,
K2, Kavg, ACD, LT, AL, IOL Power between IOL Master 700
and Galilei-6. Units are in mm excepts for CCT, where units are in µm, and
Keratometric reading, where units are in Diopters (D).
To obtain this desired near perfect result,
different IOL designs have been introduced in the market catering for spherical
and other aberrations, corneal astigmatism and accommodation. But such
advancement in IOL design must parallel an equal precision in estimating the
required IOL power to achieve emmetropia. Additionally, it is now necessary to
fill in the possible ‘misses’ in pre-operative evaluation to lessen or
extinguish the chance of any post-operative refractive surprise12.
All biometric instruments are evaluated for
repeatability before they become available for clinical practice. However, it
is also necessary to compare one instrument with the others and establish
agreement among them with the understanding that for any two devices to be used
interchangeably, the degree of disagreement between them has to be clinically
insignificant.
In this study the IOL Master 700 is
compared with the Galilei G6 for agreement between their biometric estimates
and the difference in the estimated IOL power proposed by each to achieve
emmetropia in the same eye.
Foremost, it was noted that the Galilei 6
had considerably high failure rate (28.6%) in comparison to the IOL Master 700 (1.46%).
This problem was encountered especially in the setting of dense cataract and
posterior sub capsular cataracts (PSC). Other studies have reported similar failure
rates for the G613-15. Since in PSC the opacities are located nearer
to the nodal point of the lens, PCI or OCLR based devises have faced
considerable problems in measurements. The IOL Master 700 bypasses this problem
by taking a longitudinal scan of the entire visual axis instead resulting in
much higher acquisition for AL even in the presence of dense cataracts and PSC.
This failure of acquiring scans by the Galilei was independent of the K
readings or the axial length of the eyes studied.
K readings and the AL measurements have the
highest impact in IOL power calculations. Most IOL power calculation formulas
use AL as well as keratometry measurements. Some also require other parameters
such as ACD and white to white claiming more accurate calculations. The IOL Master employs a distance independent
telecentric keratometer device and has, in this study, estimated a mean K
reading (for both flattest and steepest K) which is 0.25 D (approximately)
lower than the placido based G6. Similar statistically significant disagreement
has been reported by other studies as well16,17.
The AL estimates in our study were compared
only for those eyes in which the G6 was able to give a result (i.e. 147 eyes
out of 206). It was noted that the mean AL was underestimated by the G6 by
approximately 0.39 mm. This difference though not statistically significant (p
value > 0.05) has important clinical bearing as even 0.6 mm off set in AL
can impact the IOL power calculation by 0.5D which is significant in term of
post operative visual result.
The impact of this disagreement is
reflected in the final IOL power estimates for emmetropia using the SRK formula
where the same IOL power was estimated by both devices in only 18% of eyes. The
majority of IOL estimates were offset by at least 0.5 Diopters.
The central corneal thickness (CCT), LT and
WTW estimates by both machines correlated well with each other with mean
difference that is neither statistically nor clinically significant. The
ability to measure CCT is one main advantage of both these devices (not
available on IOL Master 500).
The mean difference in ACD measurements
acquired by the two devices showed statistically significant disagreement. This
difference may be due to the different measuring technique and has also been
reported by similar studies18-21. With the added fixation monitor of
the IOL Master, measurement is taken only after ensuring that the visual axis
is properly aligned (a feature that is exclusive to the IOL Master 700). With
other devices based on slit lamp illumination such as the IOL Master 500 and
G6, the slit source is projected temporally22. This off center
measurement of ACD may be a source of error23.
It was observed during the course of this
study that in addition to having minimum failure rate, the IOL Master 700 gave
a unique advantage of directly visualizing the entire length of the visual axis
making apparent such features as decentered, subluxated lenses and lens tilt
that are possible causes of post-operative refractive surprises.
Also, by visualizing the foveal pit, it is
possible to ensure correct alignment of the visual axis before measurements are
taken that leads to unprecedented accuracy in results. In addition, gross
abnormalities in the foveal image detected during biometry were noted and such
patients were then subjected to a wider OCT scan of the macular area where
“missed” macular abnormalities were recorded. Counseling the patient at this stage
in pre-operative assessment proved easier and more fruitful as these patients
had more realistic expectations of post-operative vision and were also more
receptive to proposed retinal treatments.
It remains to be seen
which of the IOL power predictions are more accurate in term of post operative refraction.
This study is limited by the practical implementation of the results obtained
by these biometric devices. Indeed, this is a direction for future studies in
which post-operative refraction is observed for IOLs suggested by these
machines.
CONCLUSION
This study establishes
that there is a significant disagreement in biometric measurements obtained by
the IOL Master 700 and the Galilei G6. It is suggested in light of these that results
of these two devices not be used interchangeably.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS: None.
Author’s Affiliation
Dr. Aamir Asrar
MBBS, FRCS, Fellowship in Vitreo-Retinal Surgery, Fellowship in
Corneo- Refractive Surgery,
Chief Consultant
Ophthalmologist,
Amanat Eye Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
Bisma Ikram
BSc (HONS) Optometrist and
Orthoptist, MSPH, Research Consultant,
Department of Research and
Development,
Amanat Eye Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
Dr. Hina Khan
MBBS, FCPS,
Consultant Ophthalmologist,
Head of Ophthalmic Diagnostic
Department,
Amanat Eye Hospital, Islamabad, Pakistan
Maha Asrar
Medical Student,
Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad
Role of Authors
Dr. Aamir Asrar
Concept and design, drafting the manuscript
critical revision for intellectual content
Bisma Ikram
Concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis
and Interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript, Critical revision for
intellectual content
Dr. Hina Khan
Drafting the manuscript, Critical revision
for intellectual content, Supervision
Maha Asrar
Acquisition of data, Drafting the
manuscript
REFERENCES
1.
Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Wälti R, Clemetson IA, Tappeiner C, Goldblum D. Comparison and evaluation of ocular biometry using a new
noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer. Ophthalmology, 2009; 116: 2087–92.
2.
Wang JK, Chang SW.
Optical biometry intraocular lens power calculation using different formulas in
patients with different axial lengths. Int J Ophthalmol. 2013; 6: 150–4.
3.
Hsieh YT, Wang IJ.
Intraocular lens power measured by partial coherence interferometry. Optom Vis
Sci. 2012; 89: 1697–701.
4.
Kunavisarut P, Poopattanakul P, Intarated C, Pathanapitoon K. Accuracy and reliability of IOL Master and A-scan immersion
biometry in silicone oil-filled eyes. Eye, 2012; 26: 1344–8.
5.
Roessler GF, Dietlein TS, Plange N, Roepke AK, Dinslage S, Walter
P, Mazinani BA. Accuracy of intraocular
lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry in patients with
high myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012; 32: 228–33.
6.
Olsen T.
Improved accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation with the Zeiss IOL Master.
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007; 85: 84–7.
7.
Akman A, Güngör SG.
Comparison of new IOL Master 700 swept source biometry system with the IOL Master
500 optical biometry. Paper presented at ESCRS Meeting, 5–9 September 2015;
Barcelona, Spain.
8.
Kummelil
MK, Das S, Thakkar M, Shetty R, Shetty BK, Haria D, Kaweri L, Deshpande K. Repeatability and Agreement of Four
Biometers for Measuring Various Anterior Segment Parameters. J Vis Sci. 2015; 1
(2): 9-14.
9.
Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S. Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence
tomography–based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence
tomography–based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41: 2224–2232.
10.
Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A2, Seitz B,
Langenbucher A. Comparison of 3 biometry
devices in cataract patients.J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015 Nov; 41 (11): 2387-93.
11.
Karabela Y, Eliacik M, Kaya F. Performance of the SRK/T formula using A-Scan ultrasound biometry
after phacoemulsification in eyes with short and long axial lengths. BMC
Ophthalmol. 2016; 16: 96.
12.
Tehrani M, Krummenauer F, Blom E, Dick HB. Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and
applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29: 741–6.
13.
Freeman G, Pesudovs K. The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with
the IOL Master. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005; 83: 439–42.
14.
Chylack LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey
IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal
Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 831–6.
15.
Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, Loo VP, Subrayan V. Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry.
Eye (Lond). 2011; 25: 717–24.
16.
Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with
the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011; 37: 513–7.
17.
Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new
optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract
Surg. 2014; 40: 593–600.
18.
Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T. Evaluation of a new IOL Master algorithm to measure axial length.
J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34: 920–4.
19.
Kriechbaum K, Findl O, Kiss B, Sacu S, Petternel V, Drexler W. Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurement methods in phakic
and pseudophakic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003; 29: 89–94.
20.
Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Avni I, Zadok D. Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and
keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007; 143: 48–53.
21.
Uçakhan ÖÖ, Akbel V, Biyikli 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: 201–6.
22.
Huang J, Liao N, Savini G, Bao F, Yu Y, Lu W, Hu Q, Wang Q. Comparison of anterior segment measurements with
Scheimpflug/Placido photography-based topography system and IOL Master partial
coherence interferometry in patients with cataracts. J Ophthalmol. 2014: 540–760.
23.
Reddy AR, Pande MV, Finn P, El-Gogary H. Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by
ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOL Master. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004; 30:
1268–71.