4.4 Article

Evaluation of the repeatability of a swept-source ocular biometer for measuring ocular biometric parameters

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-016-3555-z

Keywords

IOLMaster 700; Anterior segment repeatability; Lens repeatability; Axial length repeatability; Corneal thickness repeatability; Anterior chamber depth repeatability

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad Grant Explora [SAF2013-49284-EXP]
  2. Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnica de Excelencia, Gobierno de Espana
  3. University of Valencia [UV-INV-PREDOC12-110412]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose was to evaluate the repeatability of a new swept-source optical biometer for measuring ocular biometric parameters. Thirty subjects with healthy and phakic eyes were included in this study, and only one eye per participant was analysed. Each eye was measured five times with the IOLMaster 700 swept-source optical biometer (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany). Axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), central corneal thickness (CCT), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW), and K1 and K2 keratometric readings were evaluated. The repeatability of swept-source biometry was evaluated on the basis of five measurements captured for each patient. The repeatability limits for the axial measurements AL, ACD, CCT, and LT were 0.03, 0.07, 0.004, and 0.11 mm, respectively. For the WTW distance and both keratometry readings, the repeatability limits were 0.20, 0.06, and 0.05 mm, respectively. The AL resulted in the lowest coefficient of variation, and the LT had the highest one. The spherical equivalent showed statistically significant negative correlations with the AL and ACD. Swept-source optical biometry showed high repeatability performance for all biometric parameters in healthy eyes, where the correlation between the spherical equivalent and AL showed the strongest value.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available