Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Refractive outcomes comparison between the Lenstar LS 900® optical biometry and immersion A-scan ultrasound

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) calculations in eyes undergoing phacoemulsification cataract surgery with IOL implantation using immersion A-scan ultrasound (US) and Lenstar LS 900® biometry. In this prospective study, 200 eyes of 200 patients were randomized to undergo either Lenstar LS 900® or immersion A-scan US biometry to determine the IOL dioptric power prior to phacoemulsification cataract surgery. Post-operative refractive outcomes of these two groups of patients were compared. The result showed no significant difference between the target spherical equivalent (SE) and the post-operative SE value by the Lenstar LS 900® (p value = 0.632) or immersion A-scan US biometry (p value = 0.438) devices. The magnitude of difference between the two biometric devices were not significantly different (p value = 0.868). There was no significant difference in the predicted post-operative refractive outcome between immersion A-scan US biometry and Lenstar LS 900®. Based on the results, the immersion A-scan US technique is as accurate as Lenstar LS 900® in the hands of an experienced operator.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KKS, Loo VP, Subrayan V (2011) Agreement analysis of Lenstar with other techniques of biometry. Eye 25:717–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nemeth G, Nagy A, Berta A, Modis LJ (2012) Comparison of intraocular lens power prediction using immersion ultrasound and optical biometry with and without formula optimization. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 250(9):1321–1325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Landers J, Goggin M (2009) Comparison of refractive outcomes using immersion ultrasound biometry and IOL master biometry. Clin Exp 37:566–569

    Google Scholar 

  4. Narvaez J, Cherwek DH, Stulting RD, Waldron R, Zimmerman GJ, Wessels IE, Waring GO III (2008) Comparing Immersion ultrasound with partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens power calculation. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 39:30–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lam S (2013) Comparing optical low coherence reflectometry and immersion ultrasound in refractive outcome after cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(2):297–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fendl O, Kriechbaum K, Sacu S et al (2003) Influence of operator experience on the performance of ultrasound biometry compared to optical biometry before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:1950–1955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Trivedi RH, Wilson ME (2011) Prediction error after pediatric cataract surgery with intraocular lens implantation: contact versus immersion A-scan biometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:501–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang SW, Yu CY, Chen DP (2009) Comparison of intraocular lens power calculation by the IOL master in phakic and eyes with hydrophobic acrylic lenses. Ophthalmology 116:1336–1342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hennessy MP, Chan DG (2003) Contact versus immersion biometry of axial length before cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:2195–2198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson A, Armstrong R (1999) Contact or immersion technique for axial length measurement? Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 27:49–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Olsen T, Nielsen PJ (1989) Immersion versus contact technique in the measurement of axial length by ultrasound. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 67:101–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shammas HJ (1984) A comparison of immersion and contact techniques for axial length measurement. Am Intra-Ocular Implant Soc J 10:444–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tsang CS, Chong GS, Yiu EP, Ho CK (2003) Intraocular lens power calculation formulas in Chinese eyes with high axial myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 29(7):1358–1364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gale RP, Saldana M, Johnston RL, Zuberbuhler B, McKibbin M (2009) Benchmark standards for refractive outcomes after NHS cataract surgery. Eye 23:149–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hahn U, Krummenauer F, Kolbl B, Neuhann T, Schayan-Araghi K, Schmickler S, von Wolff K, Weindler J, Will T, Neuhann I (2011) Determination of valid benchmarks for outcome indicators in cataract surgery; a multicenter, prospective cohort trial. Ophthalmology 118:2011–2105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Butcher JM, O’Brien C (1991) The reproducibility of biometry and keratometry measurements. Eye 5:708–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Raj PS, Ilango B, Watson A (1998) Measurement of axial length in the calculation of intraocular lens power. Eye 12:227–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interests

Neither author has financial or propriety interest in any of the material or methods mentioned.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Malaya, 59100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Palanyraj Naicker, Siva Sundralingam, Mohammadreza Peyman, Azida Juana, Nor Fadhilah Mohamad, Maung Maung Win, Angela Loo & Visvaraja Subrayan

Authors
  1. Palanyraj Naicker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siva Sundralingam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammadreza Peyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Azida Juana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nor Fadhilah Mohamad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maung Maung Win
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angela Loo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Visvaraja Subrayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Visvaraja Subrayan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naicker, P., Sundralingam, S., Peyman, M. et al. Refractive outcomes comparison between the Lenstar LS 900® optical biometry and immersion A-scan ultrasound. Int Ophthalmol 35, 459–466 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-014-9970-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-014-9970-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation