Correlation between axial length measurements obtained from Aladdin optical biometer and axial length estimator

• Main Authors: Jefli, Adib Fadzly, Muhammad Afzam Shah, Abdul Rahim, Firdaus, Yusof Alias
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: IIUM Press 2024
• Subjects: RE Ophthalmology; RE88 Ophthalmic nursing (Including eye, ear, nose and throat combined)
• Online Access: http://irep.iium.edu.my/117436/8/117436_Correlation%20between%20axial%20length%20measurements.pdf; http://irep.iium.edu.my/117436/; https://journals.iium.edu.my/ijahs/index.php/IJAHS/article/view/942/845; https://doi.org/10.31436/ijahs.v8i5

Background: Myopia is a significant public health concern associated with ocular pathologies like retinal detachment and glaucoma. Accurate measurement of axial length (AL) is crucial in myopia management. The Topcon Aladdin HW3.0 biometer is considered a gold standard, while the Axial Length Estimator (ALE) provides a cost-effective formula-based alternative. The ALE is a newer, more accessible tool for estimating axial length, using readily available clinical data like refractive error and corneal curvature. This study evaluates the correlation between the two methods and examines AL differences between genders. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 99 participants underwent AL measurements using both the Topcon Aladdin HW3.0 and ALE formula. Statistical analysis included Pearson correlation, paired-sample t-tests, and independent-sample t-tests. Results: A strong positive correlation between the two methods was found (r = 0.853, p < 0.0005). However, a statistically significant difference was noted between the mean AL values (p = 0.032). Gender comparison yielded no significant difference in AL values using either method. Our findings suggest a strong correlation between the Topcon Aladdin HW3.0 biometer and the ALE. Despite this, the significant difference in mean AL values highlights potential limitations of the ALE, particularly in the precise measurement required for myopia management. The sample size may influence the lack of gender differences in AL. Conclusion: The ALE offers a promising alternative for AL measurement but is limited by significant differences from the biometer values, especially in clinical settings requiring precision. Further research is necessary to determine the ALE’s clinical applicability.