ArticleKlinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde2025
Comparison of Ocular Biometry Measurements from Two Swept-Source OCT Devices: Eyestar 900 vs. Anterion.
Article in Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) devices are the current gold standard for the measurement of ocular biometric and keratometric parameters, which are essential for the calculation and selection of intraocular lenses (IOLs). This study compares the agreement of two SS-OCT devices, the Eyestar 900 (Haag-Streit, Köniz, Switzerland) and the Anterion (Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany). MATERIALS AND
methodsAll patients undergoing cataract surgery or seeking consultation for corneal abnormalities between January 2024 and May 2024 were eligible for inclusion. Both eyes were included in the final analysis.
resultsA sample of 86 eyes from 43 patients was analysed. The mean differences (ES-AN) across all data between the Eyestar 900 (ES) and Anterion (AN) were as follows: anterior chamber depth (ACD) - 0.080 mm (ICC > 0.926), axial length (AL) 0.015 mm (ICC > 0.99), central corneal thickness (CCT) 0.914 µm (ICC > 0.921), corneal curvature along the flat meridian (K1) - 0.024 D (ICC > 0.904), and steep meridian (K2) - 0.210 D (ICC > 0.902), white-to-white corneal diameter (WTW) 0.215 mm (ICC > 0.81). There was excellent agreement for ACD, AL, CCT, K1, K2, and WTW. However, the corneal axis (AX) showed only moderate agreement (ICC > 0.389), with a mean difference of 5.97° and a notable standard deviation of 58.6°.
conclusionsThe Eyestar 900 and Anterion demonstrated substantial agreement for all parameters except for the corneal meridian axis. It may be assumed that the inclusion of eyes with irregular corneal topographies may have contributed to this discrepancy. SUMMARY: Overall, there was a high level of agreement between the Eyestar 900 and Anterion. It is reasonable to assume that the measurement outcomes provided by both devices are interchangeable for the calculation of target refractive outcomes for intraocular lenses, with no clinically relevant differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.