What question did this study set out to answer?

This research evaluates the compatibility and agreement between two biometry devices used in measuring eye parameters in patients with senile cataracts.

June 5, 2026Open Access

Comparison of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography biometry measurements with partial coherence interferometry optical biometry

Key Points

This research evaluates the compatibility and agreement between two biometry devices used in measuring eye parameters in patients with senile cataracts.
Prospective comparative cross-sectional study with 60 patients aged 40–82 years.
Measured axial length, anterior chamber depth, keratometry, and astigmatism with SD-OCT and PCI.
Used Bland-Altman analysis, Pearson and interclass correlation coefficients for data evaluation.
No significant difference in axial length (p=0.507) and anterior chamber depth (p=0.218) with high correlation coefficients (AL: r=0.998; ACD: r=0.945).
Bland-Altman showed excellent agreement for axial length with a bias of -0.01 mm, and acceptable agreement for ACD with a bias of 0.02 mm.
Significant differences in keratometry (K1: +0.76 D; K2: +0.94 D, both p<0.001) indicating systematic bias.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the agreement and interchangeability between a spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT)-based biometer (REVO FC) and a partial coherence interferometry (PCI) device (AL Scan). Methods This prospective comparative cross-sectional study included 60 right eyes of 60 patients aged 40–82 years, diagnosed with senile cataracts. Measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K1, K2), and astigmatism vector components (J0, J45) were conducted using both devices. Paired comparisons were performed using appropriate statistical tests. Agreement was evaluated using Bland–Altman analysis, while correlation and reliability were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results No statistically significant differences were observed in AL ( p = 0.507) or ACD ( p = 0.218), with excellent correlations (AL: r = 0.998; ACD: r = 0.945). Bland–Altman analysis demonstrated excellent agreement for AL measurements, with a mean difference (bias) of − 0.01 mm and narrow 95% limits of agreement (LoA: −0.245 to 0.225 mm). For ACD, the mean difference was 0.02 mm, with a moderately wider LoA (− 0.244 to 0.288 mm), indicating an acceptable but less robust agreement compared to AL. The keratometric values were significantly higher with REVO FC (K1: +0.76 D; K2: +0.94 D; both p < 0.001), indicating a systematic bias. Despite strong correlations (K1: r = 0.980; K2: r = 0.924), the Bland–Altman analysis revealed wide limits of agreement. J0 exhibited no significant difference ( p = 0.889), whereas J45 differed significantly ( p = 0.028). Both vector components demonstrated moderate agreement, with relatively wide limits of agreement. Conclusion REVO FC and AL Scan demonstrate excellent agreement for AL and ACD measurements and may be used interchangeably for these parameters. However, significant discrepancies in keratometric and astigmatic measurements limit their interchangeability.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper