Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis
Abstract Purpose Precise ocular measurements are fundamental for achieving excellent target refraction following both cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange. Biometry devices with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) employ longer wavelengths (1055–1300 nm) in order to have bett...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | BMC Ophthalmology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02926-0 |
| _version_ | 1827956938811375616 |
|---|---|
| author | Piotr Kanclerz Idan Hecht Raimo Tuuminen |
| author_facet | Piotr Kanclerz Idan Hecht Raimo Tuuminen |
| author_sort | Piotr Kanclerz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Purpose Precise ocular measurements are fundamental for achieving excellent target refraction following both cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange. Biometry devices with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) employ longer wavelengths (1055–1300 nm) in order to have better penetration through opaque lenses than those with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) or low-coherence optical reflectometry (LCOR) methods. However, to date a pooled analysis showing the technical failure rate (TFR) between the methods has not been published. The aim of this study was to compare the TFR in SS-OCT and in PCI/LCOR biometry. Methods PubMed and Scopus were used to search the medical literature as of Feb 1, 2022. The following keywords were used in various combinations: optical biometry, partial coherence interferometry, low-coherence optical reflectometry, swept-source optical coherence tomography. Only clinical studies referring to patients undergoing routine cataract surgery, and employing at least two (PCI or LCOR vs. SS-OCT) optical methods for optical biometry in the same cohort of patients were included. Results Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, which presented results of 2,459 eyes of at least 1,853 patients. The overall TFR of all included studies was 5.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66–8.08%; overall I2 = 91.49%). The TFR was significantly different among the three methods (p < 0.001): 15.72% for PCI (95% CI: 10.73–22.46%; I2 = 99.62%), 6.88% for LCOR (95% CI: 3.26–13.92%; I2 = 86.44%), and 1.51% for SS-OCT (95% CI: 0.94–2.41%; I2 = 24.64%). The pooled TFR for infrared methods (PCI and LCOR) was 11.12% (95% CI: 8.45–14.52%; I2 = 78.28%), and was also significantly different to that of SS-OCT: 1.51% (95% CI: 0.94–2.41%; I2 = 24.64%; p < 0.001). Conclusions A meta-analysis of the TFR of different biometry methods highlighted that SS-OCT biometry resulted in significantly decreased TFR compared to PCI/LCOR devices. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:12:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f94ec760de5c477f8ca8eda364201059 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2415 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-09T15:12:25Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Ophthalmology |
| spelling | doaj.art-f94ec760de5c477f8ca8eda3642010592023-04-30T11:10:48ZengBMCBMC Ophthalmology1471-24152023-04-012311910.1186/s12886-023-02926-0Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysisPiotr Kanclerz0Idan Hecht1Raimo Tuuminen2Department of Ophthalmology, Hygeia ClinicHelsinki Retina Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of HelsinkiHelsinki Retina Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of HelsinkiAbstract Purpose Precise ocular measurements are fundamental for achieving excellent target refraction following both cataract surgery and refractive lens exchange. Biometry devices with swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) employ longer wavelengths (1055–1300 nm) in order to have better penetration through opaque lenses than those with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) or low-coherence optical reflectometry (LCOR) methods. However, to date a pooled analysis showing the technical failure rate (TFR) between the methods has not been published. The aim of this study was to compare the TFR in SS-OCT and in PCI/LCOR biometry. Methods PubMed and Scopus were used to search the medical literature as of Feb 1, 2022. The following keywords were used in various combinations: optical biometry, partial coherence interferometry, low-coherence optical reflectometry, swept-source optical coherence tomography. Only clinical studies referring to patients undergoing routine cataract surgery, and employing at least two (PCI or LCOR vs. SS-OCT) optical methods for optical biometry in the same cohort of patients were included. Results Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis, which presented results of 2,459 eyes of at least 1,853 patients. The overall TFR of all included studies was 5.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66–8.08%; overall I2 = 91.49%). The TFR was significantly different among the three methods (p < 0.001): 15.72% for PCI (95% CI: 10.73–22.46%; I2 = 99.62%), 6.88% for LCOR (95% CI: 3.26–13.92%; I2 = 86.44%), and 1.51% for SS-OCT (95% CI: 0.94–2.41%; I2 = 24.64%). The pooled TFR for infrared methods (PCI and LCOR) was 11.12% (95% CI: 8.45–14.52%; I2 = 78.28%), and was also significantly different to that of SS-OCT: 1.51% (95% CI: 0.94–2.41%; I2 = 24.64%; p < 0.001). Conclusions A meta-analysis of the TFR of different biometry methods highlighted that SS-OCT biometry resulted in significantly decreased TFR compared to PCI/LCOR devices.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02926-0CataractIntraocular lens calculationLow-coherence optical reflectometryPartial coherence interferometryOptical biometrySwept-source optical coherence tomography |
| spellingShingle | Piotr Kanclerz Idan Hecht Raimo Tuuminen Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis BMC Ophthalmology Cataract Intraocular lens calculation Low-coherence optical reflectometry Partial coherence interferometry Optical biometry Swept-source optical coherence tomography |
| title | Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis |
| title_full | Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis |
| title_short | Technical failure rates for biometry between swept-source and older-generation optical coherence methods: a review and meta-analysis |
| title_sort | technical failure rates for biometry between swept source and older generation optical coherence methods a review and meta analysis |
| topic | Cataract Intraocular lens calculation Low-coherence optical reflectometry Partial coherence interferometry Optical biometry Swept-source optical coherence tomography |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-023-02926-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT piotrkanclerz technicalfailureratesforbiometrybetweensweptsourceandoldergenerationopticalcoherencemethodsareviewandmetaanalysis AT idanhecht technicalfailureratesforbiometrybetweensweptsourceandoldergenerationopticalcoherencemethodsareviewandmetaanalysis AT raimotuuminen technicalfailureratesforbiometrybetweensweptsourceandoldergenerationopticalcoherencemethodsareviewandmetaanalysis |