Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 3/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Paper

Comparison of the measurements of a novel optical biometry: Nidek AL-Scan with Sirius and a ultrasound biometry

Authors: Çağatay Çağlar, Sücattin İlker Kocamış, Emre Demir, Mustafa Durmuş

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

To investigate the accuracy of the measurements of Nidek AL-Scan by comparing with Sirius (CSO, Florence, Italy), a corneal tomography which also employs the Scheimpflug principle, and a commonly used device, ultrasound biometry (UB) (Aviso A/B, Quantel Medical, MT, USA). Right eyes of 85 healthy volunteers (58 women 27 men) with a mean age of 39.24 ± 14.37 years (range 15–68) were enrolled into this comparative prospective study. Average K 2.4, average K 3.3, CCT (central corneal thickness), WTW (white to white distance), ACD (anterior chamber depth) and AL (axial length) were obtained from the AL-Scan and compared with average SimK, CCT, WTW (horizontal anterior chamber diameter) and ACD obtained from Sirius and also compared with ACD and AL obtained from UB. The statistically significant difference was found between all of the measurements (p < 0.001) except the average keratometry values (K2.4, K3.3, SimK) (p = 0.083). There was a perfect correlation between keratometry, CCT and AL measurements of the devices (ICC = 0.977, 0.954, 0.923, respectively) and there was a strong correlation between the WTW measurements of AL-Scan and Sirius (ICC = 0.865). While ACD parameter of AL-Scan and UB showed a perfect correlation (ICC = 0.977), there was a moderate correlation between AL-Scan and Sirius and also between UB and Sirius (ICC = 0.608 and 0.664, respectively). There was a high correlation between the all measurements, besides ACD, of AL-Scan and Sirius and they can be used interchangeably for average keratometry and WTW confidently. However, ACD and CCT have a broader 95 % LoA (−0.039 to 0.744 and −24.985 to 3.691, respectively). In addition, AL-Scan and UB were in good agreement regarding ACD, while differences in AL measurements of UB and AL-Scan were clinically important (95 % LoA = −0.091 to 0.703). Furthermore, UB and Sirius have a moderate agreement regarding ACD (95 % LoA = −0.047 to 0.680).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Flynn TH, Sharma DP, Bunce C, Wilkins MR (2015) Differential precision of corneal Pentacam HR measurements in early and advanced keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307201. [Epub ahead of print] Flynn TH, Sharma DP, Bunce C, Wilkins MR (2015) Differential precision of corneal Pentacam HR measurements in early and advanced keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307201. [Epub ahead of print]
2.
go back to reference Moghimi S, Ramezani F, He M, Coleman AL, Lin SC (2015) Comparison of anterior segment-optical coherence tomography parameters in Phacomorphic angle closure and acute angle closure eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(13):7611–7617CrossRefPubMed Moghimi S, Ramezani F, He M, Coleman AL, Lin SC (2015) Comparison of anterior segment-optical coherence tomography parameters in Phacomorphic angle closure and acute angle closure eyes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 56(13):7611–7617CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Chan TC, Biswas S, Yu M, Jhanji V (2015) Longitudinal evaluation of cornea with swept-source optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging before and after lasik. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(30):e1219CrossRef Chan TC, Biswas S, Yu M, Jhanji V (2015) Longitudinal evaluation of cornea with swept-source optical coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging before and after lasik. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(30):e1219CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2387–2393CrossRefPubMed Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2387–2393CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M (2014) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(4):593–600CrossRefPubMed Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M (2014) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(4):593–600CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Suto C, Shimamura E, Watanabe I (2015) Comparison of 2 optical biometers and evaluation of the Camellin-Calossi intraocular lens formula for normal cataractous eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2366–2372CrossRefPubMed Suto C, Shimamura E, Watanabe I (2015) Comparison of 2 optical biometers and evaluation of the Camellin-Calossi intraocular lens formula for normal cataractous eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(11):2366–2372CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Hoffer KJ (1994) The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:700–712 (errata; 20:677) CrossRef Hoffer KJ (1994) The Hoffer Q formula: a comparison of theoretic and regression formulas. J Cataract Refract Surg 19:700–712 (errata; 20:677) CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Olsen T (1992) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 18:125–129CrossRefPubMed Olsen T (1992) Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 18:125–129CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281CrossRefPubMed Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Aktas S, Aktas H, Tetikoglu M, Sagdk HM, Özcura F (2015) Refractive results using a new optical biometry device: comparison with ultrasound biometry data. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(48):e2169CrossRef Aktas S, Aktas H, Tetikoglu M, Sagdk HM, Özcura F (2015) Refractive results using a new optical biometry device: comparison with ultrasound biometry data. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(48):e2169CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Sanders DR, Bernitsky DA, Harton PJ Jr, Rivera RR (2008) The Visian myopic implantable collamer lens does not significantly affect axial length measurement with the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 24(9):957–959PubMed Sanders DR, Bernitsky DA, Harton PJ Jr, Rivera RR (2008) The Visian myopic implantable collamer lens does not significantly affect axial length measurement with the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 24(9):957–959PubMed
12.
go back to reference Masoud M, Livny E, Bahar I (2015) Repeatability and intrasession reproducibility obtained by the Sirius anterior segment analysis system. Eye Contact Lens 41(2):107–110CrossRefPubMed Masoud M, Livny E, Bahar I (2015) Repeatability and intrasession reproducibility obtained by the Sirius anterior segment analysis system. Eye Contact Lens 41(2):107–110CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Yağcı R, Kulak AE, Güler E, Tenlik A, Gürağaç FB, Hepşen İF (2015) Comparison of anterior segment measurements with a dual Scheimpflug Placido corneal topographer and a new partial coherence interferometer in keratoconic eyes. Cornea 34(9):1012–1018CrossRefPubMed Yağcı R, Kulak AE, Güler E, Tenlik A, Gürağaç FB, Hepşen İF (2015) Comparison of anterior segment measurements with a dual Scheimpflug Placido corneal topographer and a new partial coherence interferometer in keratoconic eyes. Cornea 34(9):1012–1018CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Utine CA, Altin F, Cakir H et al (2009) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements taken with the Pentacam, Orbscan IIz and IOLMaster in myopic and emmetropic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 87:386–391CrossRefPubMed Utine CA, Altin F, Cakir H et al (2009) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements taken with the Pentacam, Orbscan IIz and IOLMaster in myopic and emmetropic eyes. Acta Ophthalmol 87:386–391CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Dervişoğulları MS, Totan Y, Gürağaç B (2015) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements of Nidek AL-Scan and Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(2):85–88CrossRefPubMed Dervişoğulları MS, Totan Y, Gürağaç B (2015) Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements of Nidek AL-Scan and Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(2):85–88CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Anayol MA, Güler E, Yağci R, Şekeroğlu MA, Ylmazoğlu M, Trhş H, Kulak AE, Ylmazbaş P (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and simulated keratometry using galilei, Pentacam, and Sirius devices. Cornea 33(6):582–586CrossRefPubMed Anayol MA, Güler E, Yağci R, Şekeroğlu MA, Ylmazoğlu M, Trhş H, Kulak AE, Ylmazbaş P (2014) Comparison of central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, and simulated keratometry using galilei, Pentacam, and Sirius devices. Cornea 33(6):582–586CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, Jorge J, Montés Micó R (2012) Central vault after phakic intraocular lens implantation: correlation with anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, spherical equivalent, and patient age. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(1):46–53CrossRefPubMed Alfonso JF, Fernández-Vega L, Lisa C, Fernandes P, Jorge J, Montés Micó R (2012) Central vault after phakic intraocular lens implantation: correlation with anterior chamber depth, white-to-white distance, spherical equivalent, and patient age. J Cataract Refract Surg 38(1):46–53CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Terzi E, Wang L, Kohnen T (2009) Accuracy of modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas in refractive lens exchange for high myopia and high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1181–1189CrossRefPubMed Terzi E, Wang L, Kohnen T (2009) Accuracy of modern intraocular lens power calculation formulas in refractive lens exchange for high myopia and high hyperopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1181–1189CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281CrossRefPubMed Huang J, Savini G, Li J, Lu W, Wu F, Wang J, Li Y, Feng Y, Wang Q (2014) Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol 98(9):1277–1281CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S (2014) Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(5):709–715CrossRefPubMed Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S (2014) Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 40(5):709–715CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of the measurements of a novel optical biometry: Nidek AL-Scan with Sirius and a ultrasound biometry
Authors
Çağatay Çağlar
Sücattin İlker Kocamış
Emre Demir
Mustafa Durmuş
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0284-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

International Ophthalmology 3/2017 Go to the issue