{"title":"Ocular Biometry and Refractive Prediction in Short Eyes: A Comparison of Two Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Biometers.","authors":"Jiyun Seong, Sang Beom Han","doi":"10.3390/bioengineering12090983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Purpose:</i></b> To compare the performance of two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers in the measurement of ocular biometry and the prediction of postoperative refractive errors in eyes with short axial length (AL). <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 48 eyes from 29 patients with AL ≤ 22 mm were included. AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and lens thickness (LT) measured using the IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 and ARGOS<sup>®</sup> before cataract surgery were compared. The refractive error prediction accuracy of the two devices was also compared. <b><i>Results:</i></b> This study included four men (7 eyes) and 25 women (41 eyes), with an average age of 70.7 ± 8.1 years (mean ± SD; range, 47-82 years). The two devices demonstrated good agreement in measurements of ocular biometry with high intraclass correlation coefficients (AL = 0.975; ACD = 0.957; K = 0.988; LT = 0.994). However, AL and ACD were significantly shorter when measured with the IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 compared to the ARGOS<sup>®</sup> (<i>p</i> < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in mean absolute prediction errors between the two devices (<i>p</i> = 0.423). The IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 showed a significantly lower mean prediction error than the ARGOS<sup>®</sup> (+0.12 ± 0.39 diopters vs. +0.20 ± 0.39 diopters, <i>p</i> = 0.006), although the difference was of limited clinical relevance. There were no significant differences in the percentages of eyes within ± 0.50 D (77.1% vs. 75.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.811) and ± 1.00 D (100% vs. 97.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.315) of the predicted refractive error. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Although IOLMaster<sup>®</sup> 700 and ARGOS<sup>®</sup> showed good agreements in eyes with short AL, significant differences were observed in the measurements of AL and ACD. Both devices demonstrated good efficacy and comparable performance in predicting postoperative refractive errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":8874,"journal":{"name":"Bioengineering","volume":"12 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12467928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioengineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12090983","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the performance of two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers in the measurement of ocular biometry and the prediction of postoperative refractive errors in eyes with short axial length (AL). Methods: A total of 48 eyes from 29 patients with AL ≤ 22 mm were included. AL, anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K), and lens thickness (LT) measured using the IOLMaster® 700 and ARGOS® before cataract surgery were compared. The refractive error prediction accuracy of the two devices was also compared. Results: This study included four men (7 eyes) and 25 women (41 eyes), with an average age of 70.7 ± 8.1 years (mean ± SD; range, 47-82 years). The two devices demonstrated good agreement in measurements of ocular biometry with high intraclass correlation coefficients (AL = 0.975; ACD = 0.957; K = 0.988; LT = 0.994). However, AL and ACD were significantly shorter when measured with the IOLMaster® 700 compared to the ARGOS® (p < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in mean absolute prediction errors between the two devices (p = 0.423). The IOLMaster® 700 showed a significantly lower mean prediction error than the ARGOS® (+0.12 ± 0.39 diopters vs. +0.20 ± 0.39 diopters, p = 0.006), although the difference was of limited clinical relevance. There were no significant differences in the percentages of eyes within ± 0.50 D (77.1% vs. 75.0%, p = 0.811) and ± 1.00 D (100% vs. 97.9%, p = 0.315) of the predicted refractive error. Conclusions: Although IOLMaster® 700 and ARGOS® showed good agreements in eyes with short AL, significant differences were observed in the measurements of AL and ACD. Both devices demonstrated good efficacy and comparable performance in predicting postoperative refractive errors.
期刊介绍:
Aims
Bioengineering (ISSN 2306-5354) provides an advanced forum for the science and technology of bioengineering. It publishes original research papers, comprehensive reviews, communications and case reports. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. All aspects of bioengineering are welcomed from theoretical concepts to education and applications. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. There are, in addition, four key features of this Journal:
● We are introducing a new concept in scientific and technical publications “The Translational Case Report in Bioengineering”. It is a descriptive explanatory analysis of a transformative or translational event. Understanding that the goal of bioengineering scholarship is to advance towards a transformative or clinical solution to an identified transformative/clinical need, the translational case report is used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles that may guide other similar transformative/translational undertakings.
● Manuscripts regarding research proposals and research ideas will be particularly welcomed.
● Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
● We also accept manuscripts communicating to a broader audience with regard to research projects financed with public funds.
Scope
● Bionics and biological cybernetics: implantology; bio–abio interfaces
● Bioelectronics: wearable electronics; implantable electronics; “more than Moore” electronics; bioelectronics devices
● Bioprocess and biosystems engineering and applications: bioprocess design; biocatalysis; bioseparation and bioreactors; bioinformatics; bioenergy; etc.
● Biomolecular, cellular and tissue engineering and applications: tissue engineering; chromosome engineering; embryo engineering; cellular, molecular and synthetic biology; metabolic engineering; bio-nanotechnology; micro/nano technologies; genetic engineering; transgenic technology
● Biomedical engineering and applications: biomechatronics; biomedical electronics; biomechanics; biomaterials; biomimetics; biomedical diagnostics; biomedical therapy; biomedical devices; sensors and circuits; biomedical imaging and medical information systems; implants and regenerative medicine; neurotechnology; clinical engineering; rehabilitation engineering
● Biochemical engineering and applications: metabolic pathway engineering; modeling and simulation
● Translational bioengineering