Die hochgeladenen ePoster sind nur für eingeloggte Teilnehmende ersichtlich.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um zu den ePoster zu gelangen.
Beitragstitel | Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measurements from Two Swept-Source OCT Devices: Eyestar 900 Vs. Anterion |
---|---|
Beitragscode | P77 |
Autor:innen | |
Präsentationsform | ePoster |
Themengebiete |
|
Abstract-Text |
Purpose: To compare the measurements between ocular swept-source-based biometers, Eyestar 900 (Haag Streit AG, Koeniz, Switzerland) and Anterion (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). Methods: This comparative, prospective study included phakic and pseudophakic patients. For each subject, data from nine measurements of both devices were averaged and analysed for each parameter. The parameters compared were axial length (AL), central corneal thickness (CCT), white-to-white diameter (WTW), aqueous depth (AD), and corneal power along the flat meridian (K1) and the steep meridian (K2). To assess the agreement between the devices, the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were used. Results: A total of 22 patients from three study arms (HEALTHY, CATARACT, CORNEA) were included in this study. Of the 44 eyes, 31 were phakic with or without cataracts, and 13 were pseudophakic. The mean differences between Eyestar 900 and the Anterion were AL 0.0049 (ICC > 0.9), CCT 0.9140 (ICC = 0.839), WTW 0.2489 (ICC = 0.81), AD -0.1138 (ICC = 0.962), K1 -0.4674 (ICC = 0.892), K2 -0.2129 (ICC = 0.948). AL, CCT, AD, and K2 showed excellent agreement. The corneal axis presented a high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91), however, the with a mean difference of 6.38 and a standard deviation of 24.02. Conclusion: The Eyestar and the Anterion showed good agreement for all parameters, except the axis of the corneal meridian. While the high retest reliability indicates the devices are correlated, there appears to be a systematic bias indicated by the elevated mean difference, while the high standard deviation of the mean difference indicates wide variation of some measurements. A possible explanation lies in the small sample size with patients from different groups. Further investigation into the matter is necessary to determine the source of the potential bias. Overall, the accuracy of the intraocular lens power calculations was clinically acceptable for both biometers. |