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 IOL Master 500, IOL Master 700, and Lenstar LS900, and compare the refractive outcomes after cataract surgery obtained using those three devices. @*Methods@#Medical records of 178 eyes of 89 patients who underwent ocular biometry with the three devices were retrospectively reviewed, and 124 eyes met the inclusion criteria. Paired comparisons were performed for axial length (AL), mean keratometry (Km), and anterior chamber depth and quantified their agreement using Bland-Altman plots. Subgroup analyses were done according to the AL and the Km. Refractive outcomes were 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 700 and Lenstar LS900, respectively. The AL measured by Lenstar LS900 was longer than that measured by IOL Master 500 and IOL Master 700 (p 25.5 mm). Km measured using the IOL Master 500 was 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 Master 700 or Lenstar LS900 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, respectively). Ocular biometry measurements by the three devices showed high agreement with narrow 95% limits of agreement. Absolute prediction errors from the 3 devices showed no statistically significant differences after cataract surgery. @*Conclusions@#The IOL Master 700 and Lenstar LS900 demonstrated superior acquisition rates of biometric measurements compared with the IOL Master 500. Ocular biometry using the 3 different devices showed high agreement, although statistically significant differences were observed; however, since there was no difference in predicting the refractive outcomes, those differences are clinically negligible.