Lenstar LS900 vs EchoScan US-800: comparison between optical and ultrasound biometry with and without contact lenses and its relationship with other biometric parameters

ABSTRACT

Background

Due to the increasing use of contact lenses (CL) and the interest in ocular and body size relationships, this study aimed to compare measurements from two biometers (contact ultrasonic EchoScan US-800 and non-contact optical Lenstar LS900) with and without CL and to explore the relationship between ocular and body biometric parameters.

Design and Methods

This cross-sectional study measured ocular biometry using two biometers along with their body height and right foot length in 50 participants. Differences between biometry data from the two devices were compared and correlations between ocular and body biometric values were analyzed.

Results

All parameters showed interbiometric differences (p ≤ 0.030), except crystalline lens thickness during CL wear (p = 0.159). Comparing measurements with and without CL, differences were observed in axial length (p < 0.001), vitreous length measured by optical biometer (p = 0.016), and anterior chamber depth by ultrasonic biometer (p < 0.016). Lens thickness remained unaffected (p ≥ 0.190). Body height and foot length were correlated with anterior chamber depth, vitreous length, and axial length (p ≤ 0.019, r ≥ 0.330). Most biometric parameters were correlated among them using both devices (p ≤ 0.037, r ≥ 0.296).

Conclusions

These biometers are not interchangeable and CL affects measurements. Body height and foot length correlate with ocular dimensions, and most ocular biometric values correlate positively.

KEYWORDS:

• Ocular biometry
• Lenstar LS900
• EchoScan US800
• contact lenses
• human morphology

Article highlights

• The present study analyzes the effect of CL wear during ocular biometry measurements.

• CL should not be worn when performing biometry, both with optical and ultrasound biometry.

• Results obtained by optical and ultrasonic biometry are not interchangeable.

• Biometric parameters such as body height or foot length correlate positively with ocular dimensions.

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Author contribution statement

Conceptualization, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; methodology, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga, Maria Iacubitchii and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; software, Veronica Noya-Padin and Hugo Pena-Verdeal.; validation, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga, Maria Iacubitchii and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; formal analysis, Veronica Noya-Padin and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; investigation, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga, Maria Iacubitchii and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; resources, Maria J. Giraldez and Eva Yebra-Pimentel; data curation, Veronica Noya-Padin and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; writing – original draft preparation, Veronica Noya-Padin and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; writing – review and editing, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga, Maria Iacubitchii, Maria J Giraldez, Eva Yebra-Pimentel and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; visualization, Veronica Noya-Padin, Jacobo Garcia-Queiruga, Maria Iacubitchii., Hugo Pena-Verdeal, Maria J Giraldez and Eva Yebra-Pimentel; supervision, Maria J Giraldez, Eva Yebra-Pimentel and Hugo Pena-Verdeal; project administration, Maria J Giraldez, Eva Yebra-Pimentel and Hugo Pena-Verdeal. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.