Publication: Evaluation of ocular biometry in primary angle-closure disease with two swept source optical coherence tomography devices
1
0
Issued Date
2022
Resource Type
Language
eng
File Type
application/pdf
ISSN
19326203
Rights Holder(s)
Scopus
Bibliographic Citation
Food Bioscience. Vol 48, No. (2022)
Suggested Citation
Wanichwecharungruang B., Amornpetchsathaporn A., Wongwijitsook W., Kongsomboon K., Chantra S. Evaluation of ocular biometry in primary angle-closure disease with two swept source optical coherence tomography devices. Food Bioscience. Vol 48, No. (2022). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265844 Retrieved from: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14740/9240
Abstract
Purpose To investigate agreement between 2 swept source OCT biometers, IOL Master700 and Anterion, in various ocular biometry and intraocular lens (IOL) calculations of primary angleclosure disease (PACD). Setting Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand. Design Prospective comparative study. Methods This study conducted in a tertiary eye care center involving biometric measurements obtained with 2 devices in phakic eye with diagnosis of PACD. Mean difference and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with confidence limits were assessed, and calculations of estimated residual refraction of the IOL were analysed using Barrett's formula. Results Sixty-nine eyes from 45 PACD patients were enrolled for the study. Excellent agreement of various parameters was revealed, with ICC (confidence limits) of K1 = 0.953 (0.861-0.979), K2 = 0.950 (0.778-0.98), ACD = 0.932 (0.529-0.978), WTW = 0.775 (0.477-0.888), and LT = 0.947 (0.905-0.97). Mean difference of axial length (AL) was -0.01 ± 0.02 mm with ICC of 1.000. IOL calculation was assessed with Barrett's formula, and Bland-Altman plot showed excellent agreement in the results of the 2 devices for the IOL power and estimated post-operative residual refraction (EPR). Conclusions Mean differences of biometric parameters, obtained with IOL Master700 and Anterion, were small, and ICC showed excellent concordance. No clinical relevance in calculation of IOL power was found, and the two devices appeared to be comparably effective in clinical practice. © 2022 Wanichwecharungruang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.