Abstract
Purpose :
Precise biometric measurements before cataract surgery are crucial for successful intraocular lens (IOL) calculation. We compared pre-cataract surgery measurements obtained using Heidelberg's new Anterion, the IOLMaster 700 (Zeiss), and the Pentacam (Oculus).
Methods :
Biometric measurements were taken with the IOLMaster700 and the Anterion, as well as corneal topography with the Pentacam. Values were compared for measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), steep and flat K, cylinder and axis. Statistical analysis was performed using paired sample t-test, Friedman test, Pearson's coefficient, and Cohen's d effect size. Clinical implications were derived from the IOL calculations for each device using the Barrett calculator.
Results :
We compared measurements of 42 eyes (21 subjects; 38% female, mean age 65.2±14.9 years). Of these, 24 eyes also had corneal parameters measured with the Pentacam. Mean AL was 23.62±1.26mm with the IOLMaster and 23.58±1.31mm with the Anterion (P=0.004; Cohen's d 0.02). Mean ACD was 3.29±0.72mm with the IOLMaster and 3.44±0.79mm with the Anterion (P=0.04, Cohen's d 0.12). There were no statistically significant differences in the steep or flat K values between the three devices. The strongest correlations were observed between the Anterion and the Pentacam in the steep and flat K values (r=0.96 and 0.97, respectively; p<0.001). The weakest correlations were observed in the axis of the flat K between the IOLMaster and Anterion (r=0.45; p=0.003) and between the Anterion and Pentacam (r=0.42; p=0.02). When calculating the IOL using the Barrett calculator and mean values of the biometric devices, the Anterion values yielded a lower cylinder power by 0.75D.
Conclusions :
Our results indicate excellent inter-device measurement agreement between the IOLMaster700 and the Anterion, rendering the two devices nearly interchangeable, with strong correlations also to the Pentacam corneal topography measurements. A clinically significant difference was observed only in the cylinder power of the calculated IOL.
This is a 2021 ARVO Annual Meeting abstract.