Comparison of Ocular Biometry and Refractive Outcomes Using IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700, and Lenstar LS900

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the agreement in ocular biometry outcomes measured by three different devices, the IOLMaster 500, IOL Master 700, and Lenstar LS900, and compare the refractive outcomes after cataract surgeryobtained using those three devices. Methods: Medical records of 178 eyes of 89 patients who underwent ocular biometry with the three deviceswere retrospectively reviewed, and 124 eyes met the inclusion criteria. Paired comparisons were performedfor axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), and anterior chamber depth and quantified their agreement usingBland-Altman plots. Subgroup analyses were done according to the AL and the Km. Refractive outcomeswere compared with respect to absolute prediction errors after cataract surgery in 54 eyes. Results: Among 124 eyes, 12, 3, and 5 eyes failed to be measured of AL by IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700and Lenstar LS900, respectively. The AL measured by Lenstar LS900 was longer than that measured by IOLMaster 500 and IOL Master 700 (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, respectively). Subgroup analysis revealed that theseresults were statistically significant only in long eyes (AL >25.5 mm). Km measured using the IOL Master 500was steeper than that measured with the IOL Master 700 or Lenstar LS900 (p = 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). anterior chamber depth measured by IOL Master 500 was shallower than that measured by IOL Master700 or Lenstar LS900 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Ocular biometry measurements by the three devicesshowed high agreement with narrow 95% limits of agreement. Absolute prediction errors from the 3 devicesshowed no statistically significant differences after cataract surgery. Conclusions: The IOL Master 700 and Lenstar LS900 demonstrated superior acquisition rates of biometricmeasurements compared with the IOL Master 500. Ocular biometry using the 3 different devices showed highagreement, although statistically significant differences were observed; however, since there was no differencein predicting the refractive outcomes, those differences are clinically negligible.