Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometry: A Comprehensive Overview

The purpose of this study was to summarize the results related to ocular biometry performed using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT). A literature search was conducted to search articles reporting the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent examinations with commercially available SS-OCT machines. The available data were thoroughly analyzed, with a particular focus on all the biometric factors used to calculate the power of intraocular lenses (IOLs) implanted during cataract surgery. The agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility of several parameters among different devices were examined. The variations found for parameters obtained from agreement testing were evaluated in order to promote the interchangeability of devices. Swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers usually produce highly repeatable and reproducible results. The excellent results obtained led us to the conclusion that optical biometers based on SS-OCT technology will probably take the lead in ocular biometry.

[1]  Yizhi Liu,et al.  Comparison of axial length measurements in silicone oil–filled eyes using SS-OCT and partial coherence interferometry , 2022, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[2]  K. Han,et al.  Agreement between Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometers and a Partial Coherence Interferometer , 2022, Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO.

[3]  A. Yu,et al.  Repeatability of a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer and agreement with other three optical biometers , 2022, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[4]  R. Montés-Micó.  Evaluation of 6 biometers based on different optical technologies , 2021, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[5]  H. Choi,et al.  Comparison of ocular biometric measurements in patients with cataract using three swept-source optical coherence tomography devices , 2021, BMC Ophthalmology.

[6]  G. Savini,et al.  Repeatability of automated measurements by a new anterior segment optical coherence tomographer and biometer and agreement with standard devices , 2021, Scientific reports.

[7]  U. Kim,et al.  Comparison study of the axial length measured using the new swept-source optical coherence tomography ANTERION and the partial coherence interferometry IOL Master. , 2020, PloS one.

[8]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Ocular biometry with swept-source optical coherence tomography , 2020, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[9]  A. Cummings,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Partial Coherence Interferometry Biometers in the Prediction of Cataract Surgery Refractive Outcomes , 2020, Clinical ophthalmology.

[10]  O. Findl,et al.  Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometry devices. , 2020, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[11]  M. Nanavaty,et al.  Comparison of Optical Low-Coherence Reflectometry and Swept-Source OCT-Based Biometry Devices in Dense Cataracts. , 2020, Journal of refractive surgery.

[12]  Robert Montés-Micó,et al.  Ocular biometric repeatability using a new high-resolution swept-source optical coherence tomographer , 2020, Expert review of medical devices.

[13]  G. Savini,et al.  Effect of orthokeratology on precision and agreement assessment of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer , 2020, Eye and Vision.

[14]  Q. Tan,et al.  Agreement of ocular biometric measurements in young healthy eyes between IOLMaster 700 and OA-2000 , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[15]  K. Nishida,et al.  Change in optical axial length after cataract surgery: segmental method versus composite method. , 2020, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[16]  C. McAlinden,et al.  Axial length measurement and detection rates using a swept-source optical coherence tomography based biometer in the presence of a dense vitreous hemorrhage. , 2020, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[17]  S. Priglinger,et al.  Evaluation of total corneal power measurements with a new optical biometer. , 2020, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[18]  Hyo Jeong Kim,et al.  Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer , 2019, PloS one.

[19]  B. Sikorski,et al.  OCT Biometry (B-OCT): A New Method for Measuring Ocular Axial Dimensions , 2019, Journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  O. Findl,et al.  Comparative analysis of 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers. , 2019, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[21]  D. Tognetto,et al.  Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer as Screening Strategy for Macular Disease in Patients Scheduled for Cataract Surgery , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[22]  L. Módis,et al.  Ocular measurements of a swept-source biometer: Repeatability data and comparison with an optical low-coherence interferometry biometer. , 2019, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[23]  K. Tsubota,et al.  Ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers with segmental or equivalent refractive indices , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[24]  Kiyoshi Tanaka,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Biometer That Uses Individual Refractive Indices to Measure Axial Length in Cataract Patients , 2019, Ophthalmic Research.

[25]  G. Savini,et al.  Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained using a swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer and a Scheimpflug-Placido tomographer. , 2019, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[26]  C. McAlinden,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of Axial Length Measurement With Three Swept-Source OCT-Based Biometers and Partial Coherence Interferometry. , 2019, Journal of refractive surgery.

[27]  C. Joo,et al.  Accuracy of swept-source optical coherence tomography based biometry for intraocular lens power calculation: a retrospective cross–sectional study , 2019, BMC Ophthalmology.

[28]  R. Montés-Micó,et al.  Repeatability assessment of biometric measurements with different refractive states and age using a swept-source biometer , 2019, Expert review of medical devices.

[29]  Anuradha Narayanan,et al.  Comparison of axial length using a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer - ARGOS with partial coherence interferometry- based biometer -IOLMaster among school children , 2018, PloS one.

[30]  C. Joo,et al.  Predictive accuracy of partial coherence interferometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography for intraocular lens power calculation , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[31]  B. Cho,et al.  Comparison of Ocular Biometry Using New Swept-source Optical Coherence Tomography-based Optical Biometer with Other Devices , 2018, Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO.

[32]  M. Ohji,et al.  Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry , 2018, PloS one.

[33]  E. Assia,et al.  Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using three optical biometry measurement devices: the OA-2000, Lenstar-LS900 and IOLMaster-500 , 2018, Eye.

[34]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of ocular parameters obtained by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer compared to the IOLMaster in healthy eyes , 2018, PloS one.

[35]  Na Rae Kim,et al.  Comparison of Repeatability and Agreement between Swept-Source Optical Biometry and Dual-Scheimpflug Topography , 2017, Journal of ophthalmology.

[36]  C. McAlinden,et al.  Precision of a new ocular biometer in eyes with cataract using swept source optical coherence tomography combined with Placido-disk corneal topography , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[37]  G. Savini,et al.  Accuracy of a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Biometer for IOL Power Calculation and Comparison to IOLMaster. , 2017, Journal of refractive surgery.

[38]  S. Sel,et al.  Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. , 2017, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[39]  M. Garza-León,et al.  Repeatability of ocular biometry with IOLMaster 700 in subjects with clear lens , 2017, International Ophthalmology.

[40]  M. Ohji,et al.  Changes in the anterior segment after cycloplegia with a biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography , 2017, PloS one.

[41]  T. Kohnen,et al.  Comparison of Axial Length, Corneal Curvature, and Anterior Chamber Depth Measurements of 2 Recently Introduced Devices to a Known Biometer. , 2017, American journal of ophthalmology.

[42]  S. Sel,et al.  Repeatability and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness and Keratometry Measurements between Four Different Devices , 2017, Journal of ophthalmology.

[43]  H. Kim,et al.  Axial length measurements: Comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer and partial coherence interferometry in myopia. , 2017, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[44]  M. Aloy,et al.  Evaluation of the repeatability of a swept-source ocular biometer for measuring ocular biometric parameters , 2017, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[45]  M. Bullimore,et al.  An Evaluation of the IOLMaster 700 , 2019, Eye & contact lens.

[46]  G. Savini,et al.  Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster , 2016, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[47]  Narendra K. Puttaiah,et al.  Biometry with a new swept‐source optical coherence tomography biometer: Repeatability and agreement with an optical low‐coherence reflectometry device , 2016, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[48]  C. Chong,et al.  Biometry measurements using a new large‐coherence–length swept‐source optical coherence tomographer , 2016, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[49]  M. Blum,et al.  Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept‐source optical coherence tomography–based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low‐coherence reflectometry , 2016, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[50]  L. Asena,et al.  Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500 , 2015, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[51]  B. Seitz,et al.  Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[52]  S. Srivannaboon,et al.  Clinical comparison of a new swept‐source optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer and a time‐domain optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer , 2015, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[53]  Qin-Mei Wang,et al.  Keratometric Index Obtained by Fourier-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography , 2015, PloS one.

[54]  H. Gerding,et al.  Comparison of two partial coherence interferometry devices for ocular biometry. , 2010, Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde.

[55]  G. Savini,et al.  Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length , 2010, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[56]  M. Holzer,et al.  Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements , 2009, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[57]  W. Hill,et al.  Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[58]  R. Tsai,et al.  Validity of the keratometric index: Evaluation by the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera , 2008, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[59]  J. Holladay,et al.  Analysis of aggregate surgically induced refractive change, prediction error, and intraocular astigmatism , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[60]  Yu Meng Wang,et al.  Repeatability and Agreement of a Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometer IOLMaster 700 Versus a Scheimpflug Imaging-Based Biometer AL-Scan in Cataract Patients. , 2020, Eye & contact lens.

[61]  Lifang Liu,et al.  Comparison of OA-2000 and IOL Master 500 using in cataract patients with high myopia. , 2019, International journal of ophthalmology.

[62]  Yan Guo,et al.  Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates With Biometers Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Compared to Partial-Coherence Interferometry and Optical Low-Coherence Interferometry. , 2017, American journal of ophthalmology.

[63]  A. Tatham.  Clinical Advances of Swept-Source OCT and New Non-Damaging Laser Treatments , 2014 .

[64]  Noel A Alpins,et al.  Practical astigmatism analysis for refractive outcomes in cataract and refractive surgery. , 2004, Survey of ophthalmology.