Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, Schneider B (2000) Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 238:765–773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kiss B, Findl O, Menapace R, Wirtitsch M, Drexler W, Hitzenberger CK et al (2002) Biometry of cataractous eyes using partial coherence interferometry: clinical feasibility study of a commercial prototype I. J Cataract Refract Surg 28:224–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nazm N, Chakrabarti A (2017) Update on optical biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. TNOA J Ophthalmic Sci Res 55:196–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU (2009) Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 93:807–810

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sahin A, Hamrah P (2012) Clinically relevant biometry. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 23:47–53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93:949–953

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Epitropoulos A (2014) Axial length measurement acquisition rates of two optical biometers in cataractous eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 8:1369–1376

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mandal P, Berrow EJ, Naroo SA, Wolffsohn JS, Uthoff D, Holland D et al (2014) Validity and repeatability of the Aladdin ocular biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 98:256–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salouti R, Nowroozzadeh MH, Zamani M, Ghoreyshi M, Salouti R (2011) Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation. Optometry 82:140–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shajari M, Lehmann UC, Kohnen T (2016) Comparison of corneal diameter and anterior chamber depth measurements using 4 different devices. Cornea 35:838–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill W, Angeles R, Otani T (2008) Evaluation of a new IOLMaster algorithm to measure axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:920–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Freeman G, Pesudovs K (2005) The impact of cataract severity on measurement acquisition with the IOLMaster. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 83:439–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA (2002) Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye (Lond) 16:552–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Németh J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N (2003) Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:85–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Pesudovs K, Yang X, Bao F, Yu A et al (2015) Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in Eyes with Cataract. PLoS ONE 10:e0128929

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Mylonas G, Sacu S, Buehl W, Ritter M, Georgopoulos M, Schmidt-Erfurth U (2011) Performance of three biometry devices in patients with different grades of age-related cataract. Acta Ophthalmol 89:e237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stattin M, Zehetner C, Bechrakis NE, Speicher L (2015) Comparison of IOL-Master 500 vs. Lenstar LS900 concerning the calculation of target refraction: a retrospective analysis. Ophthalmologe 112:444–450

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shammas HJ, Ortiz S, Shammas MC, Kim SH, Chong C (2016) Biometry measurements using a new large-coherence-length swept-source optical coherence tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:50–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akman A, Asena L, Güngör SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100:1201–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goebels S, Pattmöller M, Eppig T, Cayless A, Seitz B, Langenbucher A (2015) Comparison of 3 biometry devices in cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:2387–2393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gao R, Chen H, Savini G, Miao Y, Wang X, Yang J et al (2017) Comparison of ocular biometric measurements between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography and a common optical low coherence reflectometry. Sci Rep 7:2484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G (2010) Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:644–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hua Y, Qiu W, Xiao Q, Wu Q (2018) Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of ocular parameters obtained by the Tomey OA-2000 biometer compared to the IOLMaster in healthy eyes. PLoS ONE 13:e0193023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kunert KS, Peter M, Blum M, Haigis W, Sekundo W, Schütze J et al (2016) Repeatability and agreement in optical biometry of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based biometer versus partial coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:76–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Turczynowska M, Koźlik-Nowakowska K, Gaca-Wysocka M, Grzybowski A (2016) Effective ocular biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. European Ophthalmic Review 10:94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G, Huang J (2016) Multicenter study of optical low-coherence interferometry and partial-coherence interferometry optical biometers with patients from the United States and China. J Cataract Refract Surg 42:62–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McAlinden C, Wang Q, Gao R, Zhao W, Yu A, Li Y, Guo Y, Huang J (2017) Axial length measurement failure rates with biometers using swept-source optical coherence tomography compared to partial-coherence interferometry and optical low-coherence interferometry. Am J Ophthalmol 173:64–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Higashiyama T, Mori H, Nakajima F, Ohji M (2018) Comparison of a new biometer using swept-source optical coherence tomography and a conventional biometer using partial coherence interferometry. PLoS ONE 13:e0196401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Savini G, Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Aramberri J, Huang J, Barboni P (2017) Accuracy of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography biometer for IOL power calculation and comparison to IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 33:690–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Altman DG, Bland JM (1983) Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Giavarina D (2015) Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 25:141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centro Oftalmológico Aljaorza, Second Floor, Machala, Ecuador

    Alvaro Ortiz

  2. Centro Oftalmológico Virgilio Galvis, Floridablanca, Colombia

    Alvaro Ortiz, Virgilio Galvis, Alejandro Tello, Victor Viaña & Carlos Julián Rodriguez

  3. Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB, Bucaramanga, Colombia

    Virgilio Galvis, Alejandro Tello, Maria Isabel Corrales & Miguel Ochoa

  4. Ophthalmology Resident, Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander - FOSCAL, Floridablanca, Colombia

    Maria Isabel Corrales

  5. Fundación Oftalmológica de Santander - FOSCAL, Floridablanca, Colombia

    Miguel Ochoa

Authors
  1. Alvaro Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virgilio Galvis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alejandro Tello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Victor Viaña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Isabel Corrales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miguel Ochoa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carlos Julián Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alvaro Ortiz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethical committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortiz, A., Galvis, V., Tello, A. et al. Comparison of three optical biometers: IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin. Int Ophthalmol 39, 1809–1818 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1006-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-018-1006-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation