Aims: To assess and compare the anterior chamber depth (ACD) by different anterior segment imaging techniques. Methods: Eighty healthy eyes of 40 patients were recruited, and 3 consecutive measurements of ACD were determined prospectively utilizing Visante optical coherence tomography (OCT), slitlamp (SL) OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz. The statistical significance of interdevice differences between measurements was evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Bland-Altman analysis. The repeatability of 3 consecutive measurements was analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: The mean ACD was 2.98 ± 0.29, 2.85 ± 0.29, 3.33 ± 0.42, 2.93 ± 0.30 and 2.80 ± 0.29 mm with Visante OCT, SL-OCT, IOL Master, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz, respectively. All devices displayed a high intrasession repeatability (repeated-measures ANOVA, p > 0.05). ACD measurements obtained by the IOL Master were significantly greater compared to other devices. ACD values detected by Visante OCT and SL-OCT, Pentacam and Orbscan IIz were not clinically interchangeable, even though no statistically significant difference was detected. Conclusion: Although noncontact ACD measurements using all modalities were easy to handle and demonstrated good repeatability, the tested devices were not regarded as compatible. Hence, the clinician should take the different modalities into consideration during ACD assessment using various devices.

Keywords:
Anterior chamber depth, Visante optical coherence tomography, Slitlamp optical coherence tomography, IOL Master, Pentacam, Orbscan IIz
1.
Holladay JT, Prager TC, Chandler TY, Musgrove KH, Lewis JW, Ruiz RS: A three-part system for refining intraocular lens power calculations. J Cataract Refract Surg 1988;14:17–24.
2.
Hoffer KJ: Clinical results using the Holladay 2 intraocular lens power formula. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000;26:1233–1237.
3.
Nolan WP, Baasanhu J, Undraa A, Uranchimeg D, Ganzorig S, Johnson GJ: Screening for primary angle closure in Mongolia: a randomised controlled trial to determine whether screening and prophylactic treatment will reduce the incidence of primary angle closure glaucoma in an east Asian population. Br J Ophthalmol 2003;87:271–274.
4.
Dupps WJ Jr: Anterior segment imaging: new milestones, new challenges. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1779–1783.
5.
Sheng H, Bottjer CA, Bullimore MA: Ocular component measurement using the Zeiss IOL Master. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:27–34.
6.
Izatt JA, Hee MR, Swanson EA, Lin CP, Huang D, Schuman JS, Puliafito CA, Fujimoto JG: Micrometer-scale resolution imaging of the anterior eye in vivo with optical coherence tomography. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:1584–1589.
7.
Radhakrishnan S, Rollins AM, Roth JE, Yazdanfar S, Westphal V, Bardenstein DS, Izatt JA: Real-time optical coherence tomography of the anterior segment at 1,310 nm. Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:1179–1185.
8.
Pinero DP, Plaza AB, Alio JL: Anterior segment biometry with 2 imaging technologies: very-high-frequency ultrasound scanning versus optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:95–102.
9.
Nemeth G, Vajas A, Tsorbatzoglou A, Kolozsvari B, Modis L, Berta A: Assessment and reproducibility of anterior chamber depth measurement with anterior segment optical coherence tomography compared with immersion ultrasonography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:443–447.
10.
Baïkoff G, Jodai HJ, Bourgeon G: Measurement of the internal diameter and depth of the anterior chamber: IOL Master versus anterior chamber optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1722–1728.
11.
Dada T, Sihota R, Gadia R, Aggarwal A, Mandal S, Gupta V: Comparison of anterior segment optical coherence tomography and ultrasound biomicroscopy for assessment of the anterior segment. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:837–840.
12.
Lavanya R, Teo L, Friedman DS, Aung HT, Baskaran M, Gao H, Alfred T, Seah SK, Kashiwagi K, Foster PJ, Aung T: Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOL Master, scanning peripheral anterior chamber depth analyser and anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:1023–1026.
13.
Shankar H, Taranath D, Santhirathelagan CT: Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam: comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:103–113.
14.
Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Avni I, Zadok D: Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2007;143:48–53.
15.
Rabsilber TM, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU: Anterior chamber measurements using Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:456–459.
16.
Buehl W, Stojanac D, Sacu S, Drexler W, Findl O: Comparison of three methods of measuring corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth. Am J Ophthalmol 2006;141:7–12.
17.
Lackner B, Schmidinger G, Skorpik C: Validity and repeatability of anterior chamber depth measurements with Pentacam and Orbscan. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:858–861.
18.
Reddy AR, Pande MV, Finn P, El-Gogary H: Comparative estimation of anterior chamber depth by ultrasonography, Orbscan II, and IOL Master. J Cataract Refract Surg 2004;30:1268–1271.
19.
Lam AKC, Chan R, Pang PCK: The repeatability and accuracy of axial length and anterior chamber depth measurements from the IOL Master. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2001;21:477–483.
20.
Lee JY, Kim JH, Kim HM, Song JS: Comparison of anterior chamber depth measurement between Orbscan IIz and ultrasound biomicroscopy. J Refract Surg 2007;23:4487–491.
21.
Fea AM, Annetta F, Cirillo S, Campanella D, De Giuseppe M, Regge D, Grignolo FM: Magnetic resonance imaging and Orbscan assessment of the anterior chamber. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1713–1718.
22.
Findl O, Kriechbaum K, Sacu S, Kiss B, Polak K, Nepp J, Schild G, Rainer G, Maca S, Petternel V, Lackner B, Drexler W: Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2003;29:1950–1955.
23.
Baikoff G: Anterior segment OCT and phakic inraocular lenses: a perspective. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:1827–1835.
24.
Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B: Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000;238:765–773.
25.
Haigis W, Lee BAM: Optical biometry as alternative to acoustical biometry. Ophthalmochirurgie 2000;12:75–80.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.