Agreement of HVID/WTW measurements made by 5 devices and their correspondence to the distance from angle to angle (ATA)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh202331518

Keywords:

cataract surgery, HVID/WTW, angle to angle distance

Abstract

Purpose: to determine the consistency of HVID/WTW measurements on 5 devices, and their correspondence to the distance from angle to angle (ATA).

Methods

The relevant information on 30 right eyes was obtained from 30 volunteers. A prospective study was conducted using Wavelight Topolayzer Vario (Alcon), IOL Master 700 (Zeiss), OA2000 (Tomey), AS-OCT Casia 2 (Tomey), Zeiss Atlas 9000 (Carl Zeiss) instruments. Agreement between the measurement s made by these devices in the HVID/WTW was analyzed, and the HVID/WTW scores of each device were compared with ATA scores.

Results

The average values ​ ​ of HVID/WTW in Wavelight Topolayzer Vario, IOL Master 700, OA2000, Zeiss Atlas 9000 devices were 11.73 ± 0.33 mm, 12.01 ± 0.34 mm, 12.01 ± 0.27 mm, and 12.2 ± 0.37 mm, respectively. The mean ATA was 11.68 mm on the AS-OCT Casia2 device. The smallest difference in ATA and HVID/WTW was observed on the Wavelight Topolyzer Vario instrument which averaged 0.05±0.102mm 95% LoA (-0.41 to 0.32) (p < 0.05). The largest difference was observed between AS-OCT Casia 2 and Atlas 9000 which averaged 0.52±0.234mm 95% LoA (from-1.21 to 0.17) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our study found that the results of measurements of HVID/WTW on the Wavelight Topolayzer Vario device are optimal when compared with ATA.

References

Shi Q, Wang GY, Cheng YH, Pei C. Comparison of IOL-Master 700 and IOL-Master 500 biometers in ocular biological parameters of adolescents. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021 Jul 18;14(7):1013-1017. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2021.07.08

Montés-Micó R. Evaluation of 6 biometers based on different optical technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2022 Jan 1;48(1):16-25. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000690

Chen X, Han T, Zhao W, Wang X, Xu Y, et al. Effect of the Difference Between the White-to-White and Sulcus-to-Sulcus on Vault and the Related Factors After ICL Implantation. Ophthalmol Ther. 2021 Dec;10(4):947-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00386-7

Montés-Micó R, Tañá-Rivero P, Aguilar-Córcoles S, Ruiz-Santos M, Rodríguez-Carrillo MD, Ruiz-Mesa R. Angle-to-angle and spur-to-spur distance analysis with high-resolution optical coherence tomography. Eye Vis (Lond). 2020 Aug 16;7:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40662-020-00208-0

Kanclerz P, Przewłócka K, Wang X. Inter-device measurement variability of vital data parameters for keratorefractive and cataract refractive surgery. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2021 Sep 20; 13: 25158414211045750. https://doi.org/10.1177/25158414211045750

Hashemian SJ, Mohebbi M, Yaseri M, Jafari ME, Nabili S, Hashemian SM, Hashemian MS. Adjustment formulae to improve the correlation of white-to-white measurement with direct measurement of the ciliary sulcus diameter by ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017 Dec 16;30(3):217-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2017.11.011

Guo XX, You R, Li SS, Yang XF, Zhao L, Zhang F, et al. Comparison of ocular parameters of two biometric measurement devices in highly myopic eyes. Int J Ophthalmol. 2019 Oct 18;12(10):1548-1554. https://doi.org/10.18240/ijo.2019.10.05

Fernández J, Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Martínez J, Tauste A, Hueso E, Piñero DP. Confounding sizing in posterior chamber phakic lens selection due to white-to-white measurement bias. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019 Mar;67(3):344-349. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_613_18

Gurlevik U, Yasar E. Evaluation of the agreement of optical biometry and Scheimpflug corneal topography with different axial lengths. J Fr Ophtalmol. 2021 Dec;44(10):1576-1583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfo.2021.06.005

Chen X, Zhang D, Liu Z, Liu Y, Cai H, Wu Q, Zhang Y. Effect of Implantable Collamer Lens on Anterior Segment Measurement and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Based on IOLMaster 700 and Sirius. J Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec 21;2021:8988479. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8988479

Buckenham Boyle A, Namkung S, Shew W, Gokul A, McGhee CNJ, Ziaei M. 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. PLoS One. 2021 Jul 16;16(7):e0254832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254832

Domínguez-Vicent A, Pérez-Vives C, Ferrer-Blasco T, García-Lázaro S, Montés-Micó R. Device interchangeability on anterior chamber depth and white-to-white measurements: a thorough literature review. Int J Ophthalmol. 2016 Jul 18;9(7):1057-65.

Calvo-Sanz JA, Poyales F, Zhou Y, Arias-Puente A, Garzón N. Agreement between the biometric measurements used to calculate the size of the implantable collamer lenses measured with four different technologies. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2022 May;70(5):1586-1592. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_2217_21

Chen Y, Xia X. Comparison of the Orbscan II topographer and the iTrace aberrometer for the measurements of keratometry and corneal diameter in myopic patients. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar 31;16:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0210-8

Bandlitz S, Nakhoul M, Kotliar K. Daily Variations of Corneal White-to-White Diameter Measured with Different Methods. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2022 Sep 20;14:173-181. doi: 10.2147/OPTO.S360651. https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTO.S360651

Sayed KM, Alsamman AH. Interchangeability between Pentacam and IOLMaster in phakic intraocular lens calculation. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2015 May-Jun;25(3):202-7. https://doi.org/10.5301/ejo.5000524

Nonpassopon M, Jongkhajornpong P, Phimpho P, Cheewaruangroj N, Lekhanont K, Chuckpaiwong V. Agreement of implantable collamer lens sizes using parameters from different devices. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2022 Mar 8;7(1):e000941. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjophth-2021-000941

Downloads

Published

2023-06-30

How to Cite

1.
Saliev I. Agreement of HVID/WTW measurements made by 5 devices and their correspondence to the distance from angle to angle (ATA). J.ophthalmol. (Ukraine) [Internet]. 2023 Jun. 30 [cited 2024 Nov. 30];(3):15-8. Available from: https://ua.ozhurnal.com/index.php/files/article/view/40

Issue

No. 3 (2023): Journal of Ophthalmology (Ukraine)

Section

Clinical Ophthalmology

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Ikbol Saliev

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) that allows users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author as long as they cite the source.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors hold copyright immediately after publication of their works and retain publishing rights without any restrictions.
  2. The copyright commencement date complies the publication date of the issue, where the article is included in.

DEPOSIT POLICY

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) during the editorial process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Post-print (post-refereeing manuscript version) and publisher's PDF-version self-archiving is allowed.
  4. Archiving the pre-print (pre-refereeing manuscript version) not allowed.