IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in Eyes with Cataract

Author

Listed:
  • Colm McAlinden
  • Qinmei Wang
  • Konrad Pesudovs
  • Xin Yang
  • Fangjun Bao
  • Ayong Yu
  • Shishi Lin
  • Yifan Feng
  • Jinhai Huang

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate axial length (AL) measurement failure rate with the IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss AG, Germany) and Lenstar LS 900 (Haag-Streit AG, Switzerland) in eyes with cataract. Methods: Two hundred and ninety-six eyes of 170 patients with cataract were enrolled. Cataract type and severity were graded using the Lens Opacities Classification System III (LOCS III) and AL measurements were attempted with IOLMaster (version 5.4) and Lenstar LS 900 (version 1.1). Chi-squared analysis was used to assess if the difference in AL measurement acquisition rate was statistically significant between the two devices. The association of the different cataract types and severity with the AL measurement acquisition rate was evaluated with logistic regression analysis. Results: AL measurements were obtained in 184 eyes (62.16%) using the IOLMaster and 191 eyes (64.53%) using the Lenstar, which corresponds to a failure rate of 37.84% and 35.47% respectively. Chi-square analysis indicated no significant difference between the Lenstar and IOLMaster for AL measurement failure rate (x2 = 0.356, P = 0.550). Logistic regression analysis indicated no association between acquisition rates and cortical or nuclear cataracts with either device. There was a statistically significant association between acquisition rates and increasing severity of posterior subcapsular cataracts with the IOLMaster (β = -1.491, P

Suggested Citation

  • Colm McAlinden & Qinmei Wang & Konrad Pesudovs & Xin Yang & Fangjun Bao & Ayong Yu & Shishi Lin & Yifan Feng & Jinhai Huang, 2015. "Axial Length Measurement Failure Rates with the IOLMaster and Lenstar LS 900 in Eyes with Cataract," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-8, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128929
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128929
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128929&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128929?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chan Min Yang & Dong Hui Lim & Hyo Jeong Kim & Tae-Young Chung, 2019. "Comparison of two swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers and a partial coherence interferometer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-13, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.