Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Clinical comparison of biometry using the non-contact optical low coherence reflectometer (Lenstar LS 900) and contact ultrasound biometer (Tomey AL-3000) in cataract eyes
  1. Christoph Tappeiner1,
  2. Kaspar Rohrer1,
  3. Beatrice E Frueh1,
  4. Rudolf Waelti2,
  5. David Goldblum1,3
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Inselspital, University Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  2. 2Haag-Streit AG, Koeniz, Switzerland
  3. 3Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Goldblum, Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, University Basel, Basel CH-4031, Switzerland; dgoldblum{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

A-scan ultrasound biometers enable measurements of axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT) and usually also central corneal thickness (CCT). The new Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900 measures all of the above parameters and additionally retinal thickness in the optical line utilising optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) technology in a non-contact fashion. Furthermore, the corneal radius in the steep and flat meridian can be determined.1 In a prospective, non-randomised study, we evaluated the reproducibility and correlation of biometry using the Lenstar LS 900 compared with contact A-scan ultrasound using the AL-3000 in 83 cataract eyes of 54 subjects (mean age 73.9 years, SD 11.2). Of these 83 eyes, 58 eyes were classified as having nuclear (NUC) cataract grade 1, 17 presented with grade 2, and eight cataracts were classified as grade 3. AL measurements were possible in 68 (82%) eyes with the Lenstar versus 82 (99%) eyes with the …

View Full Text


  • Funding Supported by a grant from the Haag-Streit foundation.

  • Competing interests RW is an employee of Haag-Streit Switzerland. DG is a consultant to Haag-Streit Switzerland. No author has a direct proprietary or financial interest in any material or method mentioned.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the Cantonal Ethics Committee of Bern.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.