Czech and Slovak Ophthalmology 223 10.31348/2021/35 Original article Comparison of Optical Biometers Argos and IOL MASTER 700 Románek Jaroslav Sluková Kateřina 25 11 2021 6 4

Purpose: To compare biometric data obtained by new optical biometer Argos and conventionally used biometer IOL Master 700. Patients and methods: Retrospective analysis of biometric data of 57 patients (106 eyes) who were examined at TANA Ophthalmology Clinic s.r.o in Olomouc. Measurement of patient was carried out on both devices on the same day by the same optometrist within standard preoperative calculation of intraocular lens before cataract surgery. Evaluated and statistically analysed biometric data were axial length, anterior chamber depth, average keratometry and lens thickness. Results: Correlation between all compared data was high, with statistical significance p < 0.01. Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement with 95 % limit of agreement. Axial length, average keratometry and lens thickens did not show significant differences (p = 0.941; p = 0.773; p = 0.860). IOL Master 700 showed flatter average keratometry, however the differences were numerically small and insignificant. Anterior chamber depths obtained by Argos were longer, with significance p < 0.05. Conclusion: Segmental refractive index technology used by Argos caused differences in anterior chamber depths. Overall axial length was however not, in our cohort of patients, by this affected. In general, optical biometers Argos and IOL Master 700 show excellent agreement in measured biometric data.

 biometry SS-OCT segmental refractive index Argos References Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye. 2002;16(5):552-556. Drexler W, Findl O, Menapace R, et al. Partial coherence interferometry: a novel approach to biometry in cataract surgery. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Oct;126(4):524-534. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992 Mar;18(2):125-129. Čech R, Utíkal T, Juhászová J. Srovnání optické a ultrazvukové biometrie a zhodnocení užívání obou metod v praxi [Comparison of Optical and Ultrasound Biometry and Assessment of Using Both Methods in Practice]. Cesk Slov Oftalmol. 2014;70(1):3-9.Czech. Omoto MK, Torii H, Masui S, Ayaki M, Tsubota K, Negishi K. Ocular biometry and refractive outcomes using two swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometers with segmental or equivalent refractive indices. Sci Rep. 2019;(9):6557. Huang J, Savini G, Li J, et al. Evaluation of a new optical biometry device for measurements of ocular components and its comparison with IOL Master. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Sep;98(9):1277-1281. Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Koodkaew S. Comparison of ocular biometry and intraocular lens power using a new biometer and a standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014 May;40(5):709-715. Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG. Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster ARGOS® Biometer User Manual 2019. Shammas HJ, Ortiz S, Shammas MC, Hwam Kim S, Chong C. Biometry measurements using a new large-coherence-length sweptsource optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2016 Jan;42(1):50-61. Yang CM, Lim DH, Kim HJ, Chung TY. Comparison of two sweptsource optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 11;14(10). Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S. Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015; 41: 2224-2232. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007; 85:472-485. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:368-376. Kim SY, Cho SY, Yang JW, Kim CS, Lee YC. The correlation of differences in the ocular component values with the degree of myopic anisometropia. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2013 Feb;27(1):44-47. Faria-Ribeiro M, Lopes-Ferreira D, López-Gil N, Jorge J, González-Méijome JM. Errors associated with IOLMaster biometry as a function of internal ocular dimensions. J Optom. 2014 Apr- Jun;7(2):75-78. Tamaoki A, Kojima T, Hasegawa A, et al. Clinical evaluation of a new swept-source optical coherence biometer that uses individual refractive indices to measure axial length in cataract patients. Ophthalmic Res. 2019;19:1-13. Hussaindeen JR, Mariam EG, Arunachalam S, et al. Comparison of axial length using a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer - ARGOS with partial coherence interferometry- based biometer -IOLMaster among school children. PLoS One. 2018 Dec 27;13(12). Whang W, Yoo Y, Kang M, Joo CK. Predictive accuracy of partial coherence interferometry and swept-source optical coherence tomography for intraocular lens power calculation. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):13732. Shammas HJ, Shammas MC, Jivrajka RV, Cooke DL, Potvin R. Effects on IOL power calculation and expected clinical outcomes of axial length measurements based on multiple vs single refractive indices. Clin Ophthalmol. 2020;14:1511-1519. Yang CM, Lim DH, Kim HJ, Chung TY. Comparison of two sweptsource optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 11;14(10). Jeong J, Song H, Lee JK, Chuck RS, Kwon JW. The effect of ocular biometric factors on the accuracy of various IOL power calculation formulas. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 May 2;17(1):62. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Sep;100(9):1201-1205.