Aim The ultrasound biomicroscope (UBM) can accurately locate an extraocular muscle (EOM) insertion. The authors compared the accuracy of the Sonomed UBM (SUBM), a new ‘wide-field ultrasound biomicroscope’, with the older model Humphrey UBM (HUBM) in localising EOM insertions and compared their ranges of detection of muscle insertions.

Methods Prospective, double-masked, observational study of 27 patients undergoing primary (n=40 muscles) or repeat (n=10 muscles) horizontal or vertical rectus muscle surgery. EOM insertional distances were measured with SUBM, and then intraoperatively with callipers. A Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient were used to compare the SUBM and surgical data.

Results For all muscles, the differences between SUBM and surgery measurements were less than 1.0 mm. The mean of the SUBM insertion distances was 6.67 mm (SD 1.65 mm) versus 6.7 mm (SD 1.6 mm) at surgery. The intraclass correlation coefficient showed ‘excellent’ correlation between the two sets of data and was higher than that reported with HUBM. The image quality with the SUBM was superior to the HUBM, and its range of field was much larger (14×18 mm vs 5×6 mm).

Conclusion The SUBM with its smaller, more manoeuvrable probe handpiece and a wider scanning field was more accurate in detecting muscle insertions compared with HUBM.