Comparisons of biometric parameters measurements by Pentacam and IOLMaster700 in cataract patients

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2007.2021.05.005

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To assess the difference, correlation and agreement of the biometry parameters measured by Pentacam and IOLmaster700 in cataract patients.

Methods

A . 84 cataract surgery candidates (155 eyes) were enrolled in Weifang Eye Hospital from March, 2018 to November, 2019 and analyzed from a prospective cohort study. There were 38 males(69 eyes)and 46 females(86 eyes)with the mean age of (59.7±10.5) years-old (ranging from 3 to 81 years-old). Keratometry values at the flat (K1) and steep (K2) axis, mean corneal power (Km) and magnitude of corneal astigmatism (△K) and anterior chamber depth from anterior corneal surface to anterior lens surface (ACD), anterior chamber depth from posterior corneal surface to anterior lens surface (AQD), and central corneal thickness (CCT) were examined by IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam. Pentacam takes two range values of simk (15°), simk(2.5 mm). The difference, correlation and consistency of the measurement results of IOLmaster700, simk (15 °) and simk (2.5 mm) were expressed as ±s after normality testing and analyzed by t-test of paired samples and Bland-Altman.

Results

The K1 values measured by IOLMaster700 and Pentacam simk (15 °) and simk (2.5 mm) were (43.41±1.59)D, (43.46±1.61)D, (43.44±1.61)D, respectively; and the K2 values were (44.24±1.71)D, (44.25±1.72)D, (44.28±1.72)D, km values (43.82±1.61)D, (43.85±1.64)D, (43.86±1.63)D, respectively; and △K values were (0.83±0.68) D, (0.80±0.63) D and (0.84±0.64) D, respectively. ACD values measured by IOLMaster700 and Pentacam (Ext) were (3.11±0.48)mm, (3.17±0.46)mm, respectively; and AQD values measured by IOLMaster700 and Pentacam (Int) were (2.58±0.48) mm, (2.64±0.46)mm; the mean CCT values were (529.39±25.91) μm, (530.35±25.21) μm, respectively. There was no significant difference in ACD (Ext), ACD (Int) and CCT between two instruments (t=-1.555, -1.506, -0.385; P>0.05). There was no significant difference in K1, K2, Km, △K between IOLmaster700 and Pentacam simk(15°) (t=-1.955, -0.223, -1.480, -0.953; P>0.05). There was no significant difference in K1, K2 and △K between IOLmaster700 and Pentacam simk (2.5 mm) (t=-1.037, -1.406, -0.324; P>0.05), but there was significant difference between Km (t=-2.002, P<0.05). Pearson correlation analysis showed that there was a good correlation in K1, K2, Km, △K between the results of two instruments (r=0.978, 0.979, 0.988, 0.751; P<0.05). The results of Bland-Altman analysis showed that the average value and 95%LoA range of the difference of ACD (Ext), ACD (Int) and CCT between IOLMaster700 and Pentacam were -0.06 (-1.06—-0.94)mm, -0.06 (-1.06—-0.94)mm and -1.0 (-61.4—-59.5)μm, respectively. The average value and 95%LoA range of the difference of K1, K2, Km, Km, △K between IOLMaster700 and Pentacam simk (15 °) and simk (2.5 mm) were -0.05 (-0.69—-0.59)D, -0.02 (-0.68—-0.62)D, -0.01 (-0.72—-0.71)D, -0.04 (-0.73—-0.65) D, -0.03 (-0.53—-0.47)D, -0.04 (-0.53—-0.45)D, 0.03 (-0.90—-0.83)D and -0.01 (-0.93—-0.90)D, respectively.

Conclusions

IOLMaster700 and Pentacam have good consistency in measuring the parameters of ACD and CCT for cataract patients. The corneal curvature value from pentacam simk (15 °) is closer to IOLmaster700, and the average Km of pentacam simk (2.5 mm) is significantly different from that of IOLmaster700.

Key words: Swept-source optical coherence tomography IOLMaster700, Pentacam 3D anterior segment analyzer, Biometry, Cataract

Shan Ma, Xiuhua Liu, Yaqin Jiang. Comparisons of biometric parameters measurements by Pentacam and IOLMaster700 in cataract patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Ophthalmologic Medicine(Electronic Edition), 2021, 11(05): 280-285.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhykyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2007.2021.05.005

https://zhykyxzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V11/I05/280

Figures/Tables 3

References 26

[1]	Li JW, Li YJ, Hu XS, et al. Biosafety of a 3D-printed intraocular lens made of a poly(acrylamide-co-sodium acrylate) hydrogel in vitro and in vivo[J]. Int J Ophthalmol, 2020, 13(10): 1521-1530.
[2]	Dyrda A, Martínez-Palmer A, Martín-Moral D, et al. Clinical Results of Diffractive, Refraices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37：513-517.
[3]	Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, et al. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2014, 40: 593-600.
[4]	Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swective, Hybrid Multifocal, and Monofocal Intraocular Lenses[J]. J Ophthalmol, 2018: 8285637.
[5]	Sahin A, Hamrah P. Clinically relevant biometry[J]. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2012, 23(1)：47-53.
[6]	Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O. Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devpt source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2016, 100(9): 1201-1205.
[7]	Petermeier K, Gekeler F, Messias A, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation and optimized constants for highly myopic eyes[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2009, 35(9): 1575-1581.
[8]	Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, et al. Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements[J]. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2017, 40(5): 318-322.
[9]	Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, et al. Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept source optical coherence tomography based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low coherence reflectometry[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(1): 76-83.
[10]	Ishikawa S, Kato N, Takeuchi M. Quantitative evaluation of corneal epithelial edema after cataract surgery using corneal densitometry: a prospective study[J]. BMC Ophthalmol, 2018, 18(1): 334.
[11]	Sheard RM, Smith GT, Cooke DL. Improving the prediction accuracy of the SRK/T formula: the T2 formula[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2010, 36：1829-1834.
[12]	Ladas JG, Siddiqui AA, Devgan U, et al. A 3-D " Super Surface" Combining Modern Intraocular Lens Formulas to Generate a " Super Formula" and Maximize Accuracy[J]. JAMA Ophthalmol, 2015, 133：1431-1436.
[13]	Hoffer KJ, Savini G. Clinical Results of the Hoffer H-5 Formula in 2707 Eyes: First 5th-generation Formula Based on Gender and Race[J]. Int Ophthalmol Clin, 2017, 57：213-219.
[14]	Saad E, Shammas MC, Shammas HJ. Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation in cataract surgery[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2013, 156(3): 460-467.
[15]	Dehnavi Z, Khabazkhoob M, Mirzajani A, et al. Comparison of the Corneal Power Measurements with the TMS4-Topographer, Pentacam HR, IOL Master, and Javal Keratometer[J]. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol, 2015, 22(2): 233-237.
[16]	王子杨，杨文利，李栋军，等. 新型生物测量仪Pentacam AXL、IOLMaster 700与IOLMaster 500对白内障眼部生物学参数测量的比较[J]．中华眼科杂志，2019，55(7): 515-521.
[17]	Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, et al. Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2009, 35(7): 1193-1197.
[18]	Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, et al. Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2007, 143(1): 48-53.
[19]	Symes RJ, Ursell PG. Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values[J]. J Cataract Refract Surg, 2011, 37(2): 295-301.
[20]	Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Tsimhoni O, Archer SM, et al. Effect of axial length and keratometry measurement error on intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients[J]. J AAPOS, 2008, 12(2): 173-176.
[21]	武静，高鹏，范建武，等. Verion数字导航系统与IOLMaster700、Pentacam白内障摘除手术前测量角膜散光的比较研究[J]. 中华眼科杂志，2020，56(1): 47-52.
[22]	Day AC, Dhariwal M, Keith MS, et al. Distribution of preoperative and postoperative astigmatism in a large population of patients undergoing cataract surgery in the UK[J]. Br J Ophthalmol, 2019, 103(7): 993-1000.
[23]	Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error[J]. Optom Vis Sci, 1997, 74(6): 367-375.
[24]	Su PF, Lo AY, Hu CY, et al. Anterior chamber depth measurement in phakic and pseudophakic eyes[J]. Optom VisSci, 2008, 85(12): 1193-1200.
[25]	Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K, et al. Comparison of Axial Length, Corneal Curvature, and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements of 2 Recently Introduced Devices to a Known Biometer[J]. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2017, 178 : 58-64.
[26]	Özyol P, Özyol E. Agreement Between Swept-Source Optical Biometry and Scheimpflug-based Topography Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters[J]. Am J Ophthalmol, 2016, 169：73-78.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export