Evaluation of the repeatability of the Lenstar and comparison with two other non‐contact biometric devices in myopes. (3rd September 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhao, Jing; Chen, Zhi; Zhou, Zimei; Ding, Lan; Zhou, Xingtao
• Is Part Of: Clinical & experimental optometry. Volume 96:Number 1(2013:Jan.)
• Page Start: 92
• Page End: 99
• Publication Date: 2012-09-03
• Subjects: Optometry -- Periodicals; Optometrists -- Services for -- Australia -- Periodicals; Optometry -- Periodicals; Optométrie -- Périodiques; 617.75
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2012.00793.x
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0816-4622

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="cxo793-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>The aim was to evaluate the repeatability of a new optical low‐coherence reflectometric device Lenstar, as well as its agreement with the IOL Master and the Pentacam‐HR system in myopes.</p> </sec> <sec id="cxo793-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>In a prospective study, 56 eyes of 28 myopes were examined with the Lenstar, the IOL Master and the Pentacam‐HR system. The repeatability of the Lenstar was assessed. Bland–Altman plots were used to analyse the agreement between the Lenstar and the IOL Master for axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD from corneal epithelium to lens surface), keratometry readings of flattest and steepest meridian (K1 and K2) and horizontal iris width (white‐to‐white distance; WTW) measurements and between the Lenstar and the Pentacam‐HR system for central corneal thickness (CCT), ACD (from corneal endothelium to lens surface) and K1 and K2 readings.</p> </sec> <sec id="cxo793-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>The variability of the Lenstar was small for all recorded measurements. CCT measurements with the Lenstar and the Pentacam‐HR system and ACD measurements with the Lenstar and the other two devices showed narrow 95% limits of agreement (LoA), which imply good agreement. In contrast, range and 95% LoA were clinically significantly different for AL, K1, K2 and WTW values between the Lenstar and the IOL Master as well as for K readings between the Lenstar and the Pentacam‐HR system.</p> </sec> <sec id="cxo793-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>The repeatability of the Lenstar is excellent. In clinical practice, the Lenstar and the Pentacam‐HR system can be used interchangeably for CCT and ACD measurements but not for K readings. The Lenstar and the IOL Master can be used interchangeably for ACD measurements but not for AL, K readings or WTW distance values.</p> </sec> </abstract>