Measurement of Axial Length by Applanation Ultrasound Relative to Optical Biometry in Normal Eye
Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal,
2021, Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 33-38
The precision of axial length measurement has great impact on successful cataract surgery and refractive outcome besides its diagnostic role of many ophthalmic conditions. There are various methods for axial length measurement which differ in their operating principle and technology beside the difference in their advantage and limitation.
AIM OF STUDY:
To compare the axial length measurement performed with optical biometry IOLMaster 500(Carl-Zeiss Meditec,Jena, Germany) with those obtained by applanation ultrasound (A-Scan biometer AL-100) in three groups.
207 eyes of 104 candidates with age range (20-40 year) were included. These candidates divided into three groups according to axial length; group 1 (22 - 24 mm), group 2 (24.1 – 26 mm) and group 3 (26.1– 28 mm). Axial length was measured in three groups, firstly by optical biometry then by applanation ultrasound by the same examiner.
The axial length measured by IOLMaster was longer than by applanation ultrasound in all groups. The mean differences were (0.15mm, 0.15mm and 0.2 mm) in three groups respectively, which were statistically significant p-value < 0.05. Bland-Altman plots shows there is good agreement between measurements of two devices for all groups.
The results show optical biometry provided longer axial length than applanation ultrasound with hypermetropic shift (0.35D-0.5D) by applanation ultrasound in normal eye.
- Hitzenberger CK. Optical measurement of the axial eye length by laser Doppler interferometry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 1991;32:616–24.
- Schmid GF, Papastergiou GI, Nickla DI. Validation of laser Doppler interferometric measurements in vivo of axial eye length and thickness of fundus layers in chicks. Current Eye Research. 1996;15:691–96.
- Goldschmidt E .Refraction in the newborn. Acta Ophtahmol Scand. 1969; 47:570-8.
- Duke elder WS. System of ophthalmology. Ophthalmic optics and refraction. 1970; V:238.
- Bhardwaj V, Rajeshbhai GP. Axial Length, Anterior Chamber Depth-A Study in Different Age Groups and Refractive Errors. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR. 2013;7:2211-12.
- Hideharu Ohsugi , Yasushi Ikuno, Tomohiro Shoujou et al . Axial length changes in highly myopic eyes and influence of myopic macular complications in Japanese adults. PLoS ONE 2017;12.
- Roy A, Kar M, Mandal D et al. Variation of Axial Ocular Dimensions with Age, Sex, Height, BMI-and Their Relation to Refractive Status. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research : JCDR. 2015;9:AC01-AC04.
- Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation Current Opinion in Ophthalmology 2008;19:13–17.
- Bai QH, Wang JL, Wang QQ et al. The measurement of anterior chamber depth and axial length with the IOL Master compared with contact ultrasonic axial scan. Int J Ophthalmol 2008;1:151-54.
10. Wilson ME, Trivedi RH. Axial length measurement techniques in pediatric eyes with cataract. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology. 2012;26:13-17.
11. Sverker Norrby. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 ;34:368-76
12. Rajan MS, Bunce C, Tuft S. Interocular axial length difference and age-related cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34:76-9.
13. Fouad R. Nakhli Comparison of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound measurements of the axial length of the eye. Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology 2014;28:287–91.
14. Gursoy H, Sahin A, Basmak H et al. Lenstar versus ultrasound for ocular biometry in a pediatric population. Optom Vis Sci 2011;88:912–9.
15. Lenhart PD, Hutchinson AK, Lynn MJ et al et al. Partial coherence interferometry versus immersion ultrasonography for axial length measurement in children. Journal of cataract and refractive surgery. 2010;36:2100-2104.
16. Hill WE. The IOLMaster. Tech Ophthalmol 2003;1:62-7.
17. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307–310.
18. Mana Tehrani, Frank Krummenauer, Rajiv Kumar et al. Comparison of biometric measurements using partial coherence interferometry and applanation ultrasound. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery Volume 29, Issue 4, April 2003: 747-52.
19. Loreto T Rose, Con N Moshegov. Comparison of the Zeiss IOLMaster and applanation A-scan ultrasound: biometry for intraocular lens calculation. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2003; 31: 121–24.
20. Goyal, R., R. V. North and J. E. Morgan. Comparison of laser interferometry and ultrasound A-scan in the measurement of axial length. Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica 2003;81:331–35.
21. Cech R, Utíkal T, Juhászová J. Comparison of optical and ultrasound biometry and assessment of using both methods in practice. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2014; 70:3-9.
22. Wang X-G, Dong J, Pu Y-L, Liu H-J et al. Comparison axial length measurements from three biometric instruments in high myopia. International Journal of Ophthalmology. 2016; 9:876-80.
23. Liat Attas-Fox, David Zadok, Yariv Gerber et al. Axial Length Measurement in Eyes with Diabetic Macular Edema: A-scan Ultrasound versus IOLMaste. Ophthalmology 2007;114 : 1499- 1504.
24. Andrew K.C.Lam,Ruflina Chan, Peter C.K. Pang. The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurments from the IOLmater. Ophthal. Physiol.opt. 2001; 21:477-83.
25. Soheir H Gaballa, Riham S. H. M Allam, Nahla B Abouhussein et al. IOL master and A-scan biometry in axial length and intraocular lens power measurements. Delta J Ophthalmol 2017;18:13-9.
26. Shen P, Zheng Y, Ding X et al. Biometric measurements in highly myopic eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39:180-87.
- Article View: 3
- PDF Download: 4