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

References

• Song AL. Optical Biometry. In: Rizzuti A. StatPearls. 2022. StatPearls Publishing. [Cited 2022 Oct 20]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK580549/
   Google Scholar
• Cheng SM, Zhang JS, Shao X, et al. Repeatability of a new swept-source optical coherence tomographer and agreement with other three optical biometers. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022;260(7):2271–2281. doi: 10.1007/s00417-022-05579-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez-Vazquez J, Perez-Sanchez LI, Satrustegui-Lapetra M, et al. Measurement of the anterior chamber depth and ocular axial length: transpalpebral B-mode ultrasound using an 18-MHz linear probe compared with the IOL Master 500. Med Ultrason. 2021;23(1):48–54. doi: 10.11152/mu-2676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prado-Serrano A, Nava-Hernández NG. Cálculo del poder dióptrico de lentes intraoculares ¿Cómo evitar la sorpresa refractiva? Rev Mex Ofltamol. 2009;83(5):272–280.
   Google Scholar
• Kim M, Han ES. Comparison of optical low coherence interferometry and Scheimpflug imaging combined with partial coherence interferometry biometers in cataract eyes. Saudi J Ophthalmol. 2022;36(2):189–194. doi: 10.4103/sjopt.sjopt_50_21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, McAlinden C, Huang Y, et al. Meta-analysis of optical low-coherence reflectometry versus partial coherence interferometry biometry. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):43414. doi: 10.1038/srep43414
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scholtz SK, Langenbucher A. Calculating the human eye-the evolution of biometry for cataract surgery. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2019;237(8):933–937. doi: 10.1055/a-1002-0136
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi Q, Wang G-Y, Cheng Y-H, et al. Comparison of IOL-Master 700 and IOL-Master 500 biometers in ocular biological parameters of adolescents. Int J Ophthalmol. 2021;14(7):1013–1017. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2021.07.08
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauscher FG, Francke M, Hiemisch A, et al. Ocular biometry in children and adolescents from 4 to 17 years: a cross-sectional study in central Germany. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41(3):496–511. doi: 10.1111/opo.12814
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferrer-Blasco T, Esteve-Taboada JJ, Dominguez-Vicent A, et al. Effect of contact lenses on ocular biometric measurements based on swept-source optical coherence tomography. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2019;82(2):129–135. doi: 10.5935/0004-2749.20190020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanz Diez P, Yang L-H, Lu M-X, et al. LMS parameters, percentile, and Z-score growth curves for axial length in Chinese schoolchildren in Wuhan. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4850. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08907-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hashemi H, Pakzad R, Khabazkhoob M, et al. Ocular biometrics as a function of age, gender, height, weight, and its association with spherical equivalent in children. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2021;31(2):688–697. doi: 10.1177/1120672120908722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei S, Sun Y, Sm L, et al. Effect of body stature on refraction and ocular biometry in Chinese young adults: The Anyang University students eye study. Clin Exp Optom. 2021;104(2):201–206. doi: 10.1111/cxo.13137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinojima A, Kurihara T, Mori K, et al. Association between ocular axial length and anthropometrics of Asian adults. BMC Res Notes. 2021;14(1):328. doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05745-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Heijde GL, Meinema AJ, Vlaming MS, et al. Digital A-scan ultrasonography used to measure ocular distances. Am J Ophthalmol. 1977;83(2):276–277. doi: 10.1016/0002-9394(77)90628-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruysberg LP, Doors M, Verbakel F, et al. Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94(1):106–110. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2009.161729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liampa Z, Kynigopoulos M, Pallas G, et al. Comparison of two partial coherence interferometry devices for ocular biometry. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 2010;227(4):285–288. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1245182
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sihota R, Kamble N, Sharma AK, et al. ‘Van Herick Plus’: a modified grading scheme for the assessment of peripheral anterior chamber depth and angle. Br J Ophthalmol. 2019;103(7):960–965. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-312132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munteanu GZ, Munteanu ZVI, Roiu G, et al. Detection of intraocular hypertension during opportunity screening (Check-Up Medical Inspections). J Pers Med. 2022;12(5):777. doi: 10.3390/jpm12050777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Queiruga J, Pena-Verdeal H, Sabucedo-Villamarin B, et al. Analysis of the differences in ocular surface damage and inflammatory signs between healthy and evaporative dry eye participants. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2022;19(5):1–8. doi: 10.1080/09273948.2022.2075398
   Google Scholar
• Aktas S, Aktas H, Tetikoglu M, et al. Refractive results using a new optical biometry device: comparison with ultrasound biometry data. Medicine. 2015;94(48):e2169. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002169
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñero DP, López-Navarro A, Cabezos I, et al. Corneal topographic and aberrometric measurements obtained with a multidiagnostic device in healthy eyes: intrasession repeatability. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2149145:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2017/2149145
   Google Scholar
• García‐Resúa C, Pena‐Verdeal H, Miñones M, et al. Reliability of the non‐contact tono‐pachymeter Tonopachy NT‐530P in healthy eyes. Clin Exp Optom. 2013;96(3):286–294. doi: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00818.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fayed MA, Chen TC. Pediatric intraocular pressure measurements: Tonometers, central corneal thickness, and anesthesia. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64(6):810–825. doi: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2019.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuo Y-C, Wang J-H, Chiu C-J. Comparison of open-field autorefraction, closed-field autorefraction, and retinoscopy for refractive measurements of children and adolescents in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020;119(8):1251–1258. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.04.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadush MY, Berhe AH, Medhanyie AA. Foot length, chest and head circumference measurements in detection of low birth weight neonates in Mekelle, Ethiopia: a hospital based cross sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0866-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Donnell C, Hartwig A, Radhakrishnan HJCL, et al. Correlations between refractive error and biometric parameters in human eyes using the LenStar 900. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2011;34(1):26–31. doi: 10.1016/j.clae.2010.10.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Aguila-Carrasco AJ, Dominguez-Vicent A, Perez-Vives C, et al. Assessment of modifications in thickness, curvatures, and volume upon the cornea caused by disposable soft contact lens wear. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2015;25(5):385–390. doi: 10.5301/ejo.5000592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong RA, Davies LN, Dunne MC, et al. Statistical guidelines for clinical studies of human vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(2):123–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00815.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carkeet A. Exact parametric confidence intervals for Bland-Altman limits of agreement. Optom Vis Sci. 2015;92(3):e71–80. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn G. Design and analysis of reliability studies: the statistical evaluation of measurement errors. (NY): London: Oxford University Press: Edward Arnold Publishers; 1989.
   Google Scholar
• Gursoy H, Sahin A, Basmak H, et al. Lenstar versus ultrasound for ocular biometry in a pediatric population. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(8):912–919. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821cc4d6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• She Z, Hung L-F, Beach KM, et al. Comparing low-coherence interferometry and A-scan ultrasonography in measuring ocular axial dimensions in young rhesus monkeys. Exp Eye Res. 2022;217:108937. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2022.108937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Ji X, Lu D, et al. Comparison of A-Scan ultrasonography and the Lenstar optical biometer in Guinea pig eyes. Exp Eye Res. 2021;207:108578. doi: 10.1016/j.exer.2021.108578
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, et al. A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93(7):949–953. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.156554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis JR, Knellinger AE, Mahmoud AM, et al. Effect of soft contact lenses on optical measurements of axial length and keratometry for biometry in eyes with corneal irregularities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49(8):3371–3378. doi: 10.1167/iovs.07-1247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KE, Klein BE, Klein R, et al. Association of age, stature, and education with ocular dimensions in an older white population. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(1):88–93. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2008.521
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roy A, Kar M, Mandal D, et al. Variation of axial ocular dimensions with age, sex, height, BMI-and their relation to refractive status. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(1):AC01. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/10555.5445
   PubMedGoogle Scholar