title: Axial length measurement acquisition rates of two optical biometers in cataractous eyes.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the ability of two optical biometers to acquire the axial length (AL) measurement in cataractous eyes.
  
  
  METHODS
  This prospective, comparative, single-center study comprised 105 eyes (63 patients). AL was acquired by the composite mean value of 20 measurements (composite-20 IM) and five measurements (composite-5 IM) (IOLMaster(®) 500 version 7.1 software), and the standard mean value of the first five measurements (standard-5 LS, Lenstar LS 900(®)). Anterior chamber depth (ACD) and average keratometry (K) readings were acquired.
  
  
  RESULTS
  AL was acquired in 83.8%, 92.4%, and 84.8% of eyes for the composite-5 IM, composite-20 IM, and standard-5 LS, respectively. Standard-5 LS AL measurements were significantly shorter (P<0.001). IOLMaster(®) 500-acquired ACD (corneal epithelium to lens) measurements were significantly shorter (P<0.001). IOLMaster(®) 500 average K measurements were significantly steeper (P<0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The composite-20 IM had the highest AL acquisition success rate of the three versions evaluated. AL, ACD, and average Ks were statistically different between the two biometers, although the differences were clinically insignificant.
authors.affiliation: The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
authors.forename: Alice
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Epitropoulos
keywords: IOL power calculation; biometry; cataract
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Feb;28(2):230-4
references.pmid: 11821201
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Apr;36(4):644-8
references.pmid: 20362858
references.citation: Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 Jun;111(6):831-6
references.pmid: 8512486
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Oct;29(10):1950-5
references.pmid: 14604716
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Oct;126(4):524-34
references.pmid: 9780097
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Apr;29(4):741-6
references.pmid: 12686242
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001 Dec;27(12):1961-8
references.pmid: 11738911
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008 Jun;34(6):920-4
references.pmid: 18498996
references.citation: Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2005 Aug;83(4):439-42
references.pmid: 16029267
references.citation: Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jun;93(6):807-10
references.pmid: 19289385
references.citation: Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Aug;87(8):960-3
references.pmid: 12881334
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Feb;36(2):230-4
references.pmid: 20152602
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Feb;28(2):239-42
references.pmid: 11821203
references.citation: Eye (Lond). 2002 Sep;16(5):552-6
references.pmid: 12194067
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Feb;28(2):224-9
references.pmid: 11821200
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Jan;29(1):85-8
references.pmid: 12551672
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992 Mar;18(2):125-9
references.pmid: 1564648
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002 Feb;28(2):235-8
references.pmid: 11821202
references.citation: Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2007 Feb;85(1):84-7
references.pmid: 17244216
references.citation: J Fr Ophtalmol. 2001 Nov;24(9):922-6
references.pmid: 11912834
references.citation: J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 Sep;36(9):1474-8
references.pmid: 20692557
references.citation: Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Jul;93(7):949-53
references.pmid: 19380310
references.citation: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2001 Nov;21(6):477-83
references.pmid: 11727876