Measurement Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters between AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R)

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical availability of AL-Scan(R) (Nidek, GAMAGORI, Japan) by comparing anterior segment parameters measured with AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R) (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany). METHODS: Seventy-three patients (117 eyes) who received refractive surgery at our hospital were tested with AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R). We compared measurements including anterior chamber depth, central corneal thickness, white-to-white, and corneal curvature. RESULTS: When comparing measurements obtained with AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R), the anterior chamber depth (p < 0.001), central corneal thickness (p < 0.001) and 2.4 mm zone K value (p = 0.038) showed significant differences; the white-to-white (p = 0.348) and 3.3 mm zone K value (p = 0.429) showed no significant differences. All AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R) parameters had a strong positive linear correlation (p < 0.001). The Bland-Altman plots showed a high degree of agreement between AL-Scan(R) and Pentacam(R) in all parameters except for anterior chamber depth. CONCLUSIONS: AL-Scan(R) is convenient to use clinically because simultaneous measurements of ocular biometry including axial length, intraocular lens power, and topography are possible. However, because differences in some anterior segment parameters exist when compared with Pentacam(R), measurements with AL-Scan(R) may require comparisons with other instruments.

Comparative Analysis of Corneal Refractive Power Measured with AL-Scan(R), Autokeratometer, and Pentacam(R)

PURPOSE: To investigate clinical availability of AL-Scan(TM) (Nidek, Gamagori, Japan) by comparing corneal refractive power with AL-Scan(TM), Autokeratometer(TM) (Topcon KR-1, Tokyo, Japan) and Pentacam(TM) (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) devices. METHODS: Seventy-one patients (142 eyes) who visited our hospital for refractive surgery were tested using AL-Scan(R), Autokeratometer and Pentacam(R) and corneal refractive power was compared among devices. RESULTS: When comparing measurements with AL-Scan(R), Autokeratometer and Pentacam(R), the mean corneal refractive power was 43.37 +/- 1.32 D (2.4 mm zone), 43.35 +/- 1.32 D (3.3 mm zone), 43.36 +/- 1.35 D, and 43.35 +/- 1.36 D respectively and showed no significant differences. Corneal refractive power had strongly positive linear correlation (p < 0.001) and Bland-Altman plots showed high degree of agreement among AL-Scan(R), Autokeratometer and Pentacam(R) devices. CONCLUSIONS: Because measuring ocular biometry with AL-Scan(R) including axial length, intraocular lens power calculation and topography simultaneously is possible, clinical use is convenient. Corneal refractive power was not different when compared with autokeratometer and Pentacam(R) devices, thus, AL-Scan(R) can be used in the clinical environment.

Accuracy of Ocular Biometry and Postoperative Refraction in Cataract Patients with AL-Scan(R)

PURPOSE: To compare the axial lengths, anterior chamber depths, and keratometric measurements and to predict postoperative refractions of AL-Scan(R), IOL master(R), and ultrasound. METHODS: A total of 40 eyes in 30 patients who received cataract surgery were included in the present study. The axial length, anterior chamber depth, and keratometry were measured by 2 types of partial coherence interferometry (AL-Scan(R) and IOL master(R)) and ultrasound. The SRK/T formula was used to calculate IOL power, and the predictive error which subtracts predictive refraction from postoperative refraction was compared among the ocular biometry devices. RESULTS: Axial lengths were 23.08 +/- 0.62 mm, 23.09 +/- 0.62 mm, and 22.99 +/- 0.62 mm measured by AL scan(R), IOL master(R), and ultrasound, respectively. Axial length measured by ultrasound was statistically significantly shorter than AL scan(R) and IOL master(R) (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). The anterior chamber depth and keratometry were 3.11 +/- 0.06 mm and 44.82 +/- 1.34 D measured by AL scan(R), and 3.13 +/- 0.06 mm and 44.85 +/- 1.26 D measured by IOL master(R), respectively. The differences of anterior chamber depth and keratometry between the 2 devices were not statistically significant (p = 0.226, p = 0.331, respectively). The mean absolute prediction errors were 0.44 +/- 0.35 D, 0.40 +/- 0.34 D, and 0.39 +/- 0.30 D in AL-Scan(R), IOL master(R) and ultrasound, respectively, and were not statistically significantly different (p = 0.843, p = 0.847, p = 1.000, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The ocular biometric measurements and prediction of postoperative refraction using AL-Scan(R) were as accurate as IOL master(R) and ultrasound.