EVALUATION OF A NEW BIOMETER USING TECHNOLOGY BASED ON OPTICAL LOW-COHERENCE REFLECTOMETRY COMPARED TO THE IOLMASTER 500.

Published 2022 - 26th ESCRS Winter Meeting

Reference: P087 | Type: Abstracts | DOI: 10.82333/tzt6-zz66

Authors: Damian Garcia-Teillard* ¹ , Anabel Martinez Espert ² , Patricia Udaondo Mirete ³ , Alex Fernandez ³ , M Angeles Barranco Romero ¹ , Walter Furlan ⁴ , Salvador Garcia-Delpech ³

¹OFTALMOLOGIA,SAS-HPE,Algeciras,Spain, ²OFTALMOLOGIA,AIKEN,VALENCIA,Spain;ÓPTICA OPTOMETRIA,UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA,VALENCIA,Spain, ³OFTALMOLOGIA,AIKEN,VALENCIA,Spain, ⁴ÓPTICA OPTOMETRIA,UNIVERSITAT DE VALÈNCIA,VALENCIA,Spain

Purpose

To evaluate the results of optical biometry using the IOLMaster 500 andLenstar LS 900.

Setting

Axial length, keratometry and anterior chamber depth are essential parameters for

calculation IOL power [1,2]. In addition, axial length measurement is also

used for myopia progression control [3,4]. That makes biometers necessary for clinical practice.

There are different commercial instruments that provide these metrics [5-7]. In the

present work we compare parameters between two optical biometers.

IOLMaster, uses partial coherence inferometry (PCI), and Lenstar LS900,

based on optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) technology. It allows, with a single shot, the measurement of nine different structures along the visual axis of the eye. It also captures nterior segment images, providing a wealth of clinical information.

Methods

The examination with both instruments was performed on 18 eyes of 9 patients. Among them we found three healthy adult patients, five healthy children patients and one refractive surgery patient (myopic LASIK). White-white parameters (WTW), keratometry (K1 and K2), axial length (AL) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were compared.T-test or Wilcoxon test was used to compare the sample, depending on the normality of the sample.

Results

The sample follows a normal distribution. We tested for statistically significant differences with the t-test for related samples. There are no statistically significant differences for WTW, K2 and ACD (p-value > 0.05). There are statistically significant differences for K1 and AL (p-value < 0.05). If we evaluate the values of the adult patient sample separately, there are statistically significant differences only for AL (p-value < 0.05). If we evaluate the values of the children sample, there are statistically significant differences for K1 and AL (p-value < 0.05).

Conclusion

Although there are statistically significant differences between the two instruments, these differences are not clinically significant.