Dataset Information

Repeatability and agreement of white-to-white measurements between slit-scanning tomography, infrared biometry, dual rotating Scheimpflug camera/Placido disc tomography, and swept source anterior segment optical coherence tomography.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess the agreement and repeatability of horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID) or white-to-white (WTW) measurements between four imaging modalities; combination slit scanning elevation/Placido tomography, infrared biometry, dual rotating scheimpflug camera/Placido tomography, and swept source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).

Methods

A prospective study of 35 right eyes of healthy volunteers were evaluated using the Orbscan IIz, IOL Master 700, Galilei G2, and DRI Triton OCT devices. The inter-device agreement and repeatability of HVID/WTW measurements for each device were analysed.

Results

Mean HVID/WTW values obtained by the Orbscan IIz, IOL Master 700, Galilei G2 and DRI Triton OCT were 11.77 ± 0.40 mm, 12.40 ± 0.43 mm, 12.25 ± 0.42 mm, and 12.42 ± 0.47 mm, respectively. All pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in mean HVID/WTW measurements (p = <0.01) except for the IOL Master 700-DRI OCT Triton pair (p = 0.56). Mean differences showed that the DRI Triton OCT produced the highest HVID/WTW values, followed by the IOL Master 700, Galilei G2 and Orbscan IIz, respectively. The limits of agreement were large on all device pairs. There was high repeatability for all devices (ICC ≥ 0.980). The highest repeatability was seen in the Galilei G2 (ICC = 0.995) and lowest in the Orbscan IIz (ICC = 0.980).

Conclusions

The four devices exhibit high repeatability, but should not be used interchangeably for HVID/WTW measurements in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Buckenham Boyle A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8284630 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the agreement and precision of retinal thickness measurements obtained using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT) in healthy eyes and eyes with retinopathy.MethodsThis cross-sectional prospective study involved three DRI-OCT Triton (SS-OCT) and three 3D-OCT-1 Maestro (SD-OCT) devices. One of each device (Maestro and Triton) was paired with a single operator. Healthy subjects and patients with retinal diseases were recruited, with study eye and testing order randomized. At least 3 scans per eye were captured for wide scan (12 mm × 9 mm-Triton and Maestro) and macular cube scan (7 mm × 7 mm-Triton, 6 mm × 6 mm-Maestro). Thickness of the full retina, ganglion cell layer + inner plexiform layer (GCL+), and ganglion cell complex (GCL++) were obtained from wide scan and cube scans. Agreement of the measurements between the Triton and Maestro was evaluated by Bland-Altman analysis and Deming regression for each group. Repeatability and reproducibility were assessed using a two-way random effect analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for each parameter by group.ResultsTwenty-five healthy subjects (25 eyes) and 26 patients with retinal diseases (26 eyes), including, but not limited to, age-related macular degeneration, macular hole, and diabetic retinopathy were recruited. Overall, the measurement differences between Triton and Maestro were <6 μm (mean differences of full retina, GCL++, and GCL+ thickness were ≤5.5 μm, 1.3 μm, and 2.8 μm, respectively) and not statistically significant across the parameters. The repeatability and reproducibility estimates indicate high precision in both devices and groups. Across all the parameters, the repeatability limit was ≤7.6 μm for Triton and ≤12.7 μm for Maestro; reproducibility limit was ≤9.2 μm for Triton and ≤14.4 μm for Maestro. In eyes with retinal pathology, the repeatability coefficient of variation (CV)% was ≤2.6% for Triton and ≤3.4% for Maestro; reproducibility CV% was ≤3.3% for Triton and ≤3.5% for Maestro.ConclusionBoth Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT provide reliable measurements of retinal thickness in healthy eyes and eyes with retinal diseases. Excellent agreement between the two devices indicates interoperability when testing healthy eyes or eyes with retinal pathology. These findings support the use of thickness measurements from Triton SS-OCT and Maestro SD-OCT in clinical practice.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the predicted ablation depth (AD) with the postoperatively measured corneal ablation depth (postop-AD) at central, paracentral, and midperipheral locations using two rotating Scheimpflug analyzers and a Fourier-domain optical coherence tomographer in eyes that underwent femtosecond laser-assisted LASIK (FS-LASIK).MethodsThe values of corneal thickness were measured preoperatively and postoperatively at one and three months. The difference between preoperative and postoperative was defined as postop-AD. Measurements were performed at the corneal vertex and mid-peripheral area. The mid-peripheral corneal thickness was measured at the superior, inferior, nasal, and temporal locations at a distance of 1.0 or 2.5 mm from the corneal vertex. The predicted AD was calculated by ORK-CAM software (Schwind eye tech-solutions GmbH, Kleinostheim, Germany), and the difference between the predicted AD and postop-AD was defined as Δ-AD. Paired t-test analysis was employed to evaluate the differences, agreement was assessed by the Bland-Altman method.ResultsForty-two eyes of 42 patients were investigated. At one month, the predicted AD in the central and paracentral areas was underestimated by the Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), Sirius (Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici, Florence, Italy) and RTVue OCT (Optovue Inc., Freemont, CA, United States), whereas Δ-AD was negative as established by all devices and predominantly statistically significant. The Δ-AD values approximated zero at three months. The mean difference of Δ-AD at three months at the corneal vertex was 0.67 ± 9.39 mm, -7.92 ± 9.05 mm and -1.36 ± 8.31 mm, respectively. The mid-peripheral measurements had positive values at one month and even more highly positive at three months (with statistically significant differences in most of the cases). The agreement between the predicted and postop-AD was moderate with all devices, but slightly better with RTVue.ConclusionThe predicted AD seems to be underestimated in the central and paracentral corneal area and overestimated in the mid-periphery.Translational relevanceThe study could help to partly explain and prevent the refractive errors after FS-LASIK.