4.2 Article

Comparison of three optical biometers: IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin

Journal

INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 8, Pages 1809-1818

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-1006-z

Keywords

Diagnostic techniques; ophthalmological; Anterior chamber; Axial length; eye; Biometry; Corneal topography; methods

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the results of optical biometry using the IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin in eyes with cataract. Methods In 231 eyes of 152 patients with cataract, the measurements of 3 different biometers were retrospectively compared. Paired comparisons were performed for axial length (AL), mean keratometry (mean K) and anterior chamber depth (ACD). Results In only 197 of the 231 eyes (85.3%), it was possible to obtain reliable measurements of AL with all the three devices. It was not possible to determine AL in 16 eyes (6.9%) with Lenstar LS 900; in 19 eyes (8.2%) with Aladdin; and in 20 eyes (8.6%) with IOLMaster 500 possibly related to the severity of lens opacification (the corneas had good transparency in the eyes included in the study). There was a statistically significant difference in AL between IOLMaster 500 and the remaining two biometers (P = 0.03). However, the amount of difference was considered clinically not significant (0.04 mm). The mean keratometry (mean K) was determined in 203 eyes (87.9%) with all the three devices. Differences in mean K were between - 0.1 and 0.06 Diopters (D), which were considered neither statistically (P > 0.05) nor clinically significant. The anterior chamber depth (ACD) was determined in 197 eyes (85.28%) with all the three biometers. The differences between the three devices (0.03 to 0.13 mm) were not statistically significant and considered also clinically not significant. Conclusions There were no clinically significant differences between these 3 biometers in AL, mean K and ACD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available