Literature DB >> 21394115

Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry.

S Jasvinder1, T F Khang, K K S Sarinder, V P Loo, V Subrayan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement of the optical low-coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device LENSTAR LS900 with partial coherence interferometry (PCI) device IOLMaster and applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry.
METHODS: We conducted the study at the Ophthalmology Clinic, University of Malaya Medical Center, Malaysia. Phakic eyes of 76 consecutive cataract patients were measured using four different methods: IOLMaster, LENSTAR and A-scan applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry. We assessed the method agreement in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster, LENSTAR-applanation, and LENSTAR-immersion comparisons for axial length (AL) and intraocular lens (IOL) power using Bland-Altman plots. For average K, we compared LENSTAR with IOLMaster and the TOPCON KR-8100 autorefractor-keratometer. SRK/T formula was used to compute IOL power, with emmetropia as the target refractive outcome.
RESULTS: For all the variables studied, LENSTAR agreement with IOLMaster is strongest, followed by those with immersion and applanation. For the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison, the estimated proportion of differences falling within 0.33 mm from zero AL and within 1D from zero IOL power is 100%. The estimated proportion of differences falling within 0.5 D from zero average K is almost 100% in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison but 88% in the LENSTAR-TOPCON comparison. The proportion of differences falling within 0.10 mm (AL) and within 1D (IOL power) in the LENSTAR-IOLMaster comparison has practically significant discrepancy with that of LENSTAR-applanation and LENSTAR-immersion comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS: In phakic eyes of cataract patients, measurements of AL, average K, and IOL power calculated using the SRK/T formula from LENSTAR are biometrically equivalent to those from IOLMaster, but not with those from applanation and immersion ultrasound biometry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21394115      PMCID: PMC3178124          DOI: 10.1038/eye.2011.28

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eye (Lond)        ISSN: 0950-222X            Impact factor:   3.775


  27 in total

1.  Clinical assessment of the Zeiss IOLMaster.

Authors:  Ingrid Kielhorn; Madhavan S Rajan; Peter M Tesha; Visva Raja Subryan; John A Bell
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Evaluation of the practicality of optical biometry and applanation ultrasound in 253 eyes.

Authors:  Mana Tehrani; Frank Krummenauer; Eric Blom; H Burkhard Dick
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.351

3.  IOLMaster biometry: refractive results of 100 consecutive cases.

Authors:  H Eleftheriadis
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.638

4.  Comparison of the Zeiss IOLMaster and applanation A-scan ultrasound: biometry for intraocular lens calculation.

Authors:  Loreto T Rose; Con N Moshegov
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.207

5.  Laser vs ultrasound biometry--a study of intra- and interobserver variability.

Authors:  S Goel; C Chua; M Butcher; C A Jones; P Bagga; S Kotta
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Immersion A-scan compared with partial coherence interferometry: outcomes analysis.

Authors:  Mark Packer; I Howard Fine; Richard S Hoffman; Peggy G Coffman; Laurie K Brown
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Reproducibility of optical biometry using partial coherence interferometry : intraobserver and interobserver reliability.

Authors:  A Vogel; H B Dick; F Krummenauer
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Comparison of the ultrasonographic method with 2 partial coherence interferometry methods for intraocular lens power calculation.

Authors:  Ramin Salouti; Mohammad H Nowroozzadeh; Mohammad Zamani; Maryam Ghoreyshi; Rosa Salouti
Journal:  Optometry       Date:  2010-10-08

9.  Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations.

Authors:  M S Rajan; I Keilhorn; J A Bell
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Comparison of immersion ultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis.

Authors:  W Haigis; B Lege; N Miller; B Schneider
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.117

View more
  22 in total

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

Authors:  Palanyraj Naicker; Siva Sundralingam; Mohammadreza Peyman; Azida Juana; Nor Fadhilah Mohamad; Maung Maung Win; Angela Loo; Visvaraja Subrayan
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Development of an in vivo magnetic resonance imaging and computer modelling platform to investigate the physiological optics of the crystalline lens.

Authors:  Xingzheng Pan; Alyssa L Lie; Thomas W White; Paul J Donaldson; Ehsan Vaghefi
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2019-08-06       Impact factor: 3.732

3.  Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer.

Authors:  Leyla Asena; Sirel Gür Güngör; Ahmet Akman
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 2.031

4.  Scheimpflug camera combined with placido-disk corneal topography and optical biometry for intraocular lens power calculation.

Authors:  Ahmet Kirgiz; Kurşat Atalay; Havva Kaldirim; Kubra Serefoglu Cabuk; Mehmet Orcun Akdemir; Muhittin Taskapili
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 2.031

5.  Axial biometry of the entire eye using ultra-long scan depth optical coherence tomography.

Authors:  Jianguang Zhong; Yilei Shao; Aizhu Tao; Hong Jiang; Che Liu; Huicheng Zhang; Jianhua Wang
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 6.  Optimising biometry for best outcomes in cataract surgery.

Authors:  R Sheard
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 7.  Clinically relevant biometry.

Authors:  Afsun Sahin; Pedram Hamrah
Journal:  Curr Opin Ophthalmol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.761

8.  OPD-Scan III: a repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus.

Authors:  Soheila Asgari; Hassan Hashemi; Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur; Alireza Mohamadi; Farhad Rezvan; Akbar Fotouhi
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 2.031

9.  Agreement and clinical comparison between a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and an optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer.

Authors:  P Arriola-Villalobos; J Almendral-Gómez; N Garzón; J Ruiz-Medrano; C Fernández-Pérez; J M Martínez-de-la-Casa; D Díaz-Valle
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 3.775

10.  Comparison axial length measurements from three biometric instruments in high myopia.

Authors:  Xiao-Gang Wang; Jing Dong; Yu-Lan Pu; Hui-Jun Liu; Qiang Wu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.