Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 16, 2025
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Comparison of different methods to calculate the axial length measured by optical biometry
Giacomo Savini1, Kenneth J Hoffer, Laura Carballo
1From the G.B. Bietti Foundation I.R.C.C.S., Rome, Italy (Savini, Schiano-Lomoriello); Stein Eye Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California (Hoffer), St. Mary's Eye Center, Santa Monica, California (Dr. Hoffer); Alcon Italia, S.p.A., Milan, Italy (Carballo); University Eye Clinic, S.Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Taroni).
Purpose:
To compare axial length (AL) measurements in long eyes by 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) biometers, one based on the group refractive index (IOLMaster 700, Zeiss) and the other based on sum of segments (Argos, Movu Inc.), and compare these measurements with previously published methods to optimize AL.
Setting:
G.B. Bietti Foundation I.R.C.C.S., Rome, Italy.
Design:
Prospective case series.
Methods:
AL was measured with both optical biometers in patients with myopia (AL > 24.0 mm) and compared with the values obtained with Wang-Koch adjustment, polynomial equations for the Holladay 1 and 2 formulas, and Cooke-modified AL (CMAL).
Results:
In 102 eyes of 55 subjects, a statistically significant difference (P < .0001) was found among the 6 AL values. Posttest revealed that Argos measurements (26.90 ± 1.61 mm) were significantly lower compared with those provided by all methods (P < .001) but CMAL, whereas IOLMaster 700 measurements (27.01 ± 1.65) were higher (P < .001). No difference was found between the 2 Holladay equations. CMAL values did not reveal any difference compared with those of the Argos, but a proportional bias showed that in longer eyes, CMAL provided smaller values (P < .0001, r = -0.7221). AL overestimation by the IOLMaster 700 AL compared with the Argos was higher, the longer the eye was (P < .0001, r = 0.6959, r2 = 0.4842).
Conclusions:
The SS-OCT optical biometer based on the group refractive index overestimates AL compared with the device using segmented AL. CMAL provides the measurements closest to those of the device using segmented AL.
More Related Videos
07:44In vivo Structural Assessments of Ocular Disease in Rodent Models using Optical Coherence Tomography
Published on: July 24, 2020
06:19Comparison of Three Clinical Stereoscopic Methods for Measuring Binocular Visual Function During Amblyopic Treatment in Unilateral Amblyopia
Published on: September 27, 2024