Open Access Open Badges Research article

Comparison of the biometric values obtained by two different A-mode ultrasound devices (Eye Cubed vs. PalmScan): A Transversal, descriptive, and comparative study

Raul Velez-Montoya1*, Eugene Mark Shusterman2, Miriam Jessica López-Miranda1, Mariana Mayorquin-Ruiz3, Guillermo Salcedo-Villanueva1, Hugo Quiroz-Mercado4 and Virgilio Morales-Cantón1

Author Affiliations

1 Retina Department, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, 46 Vicente García Torres, Mexico DF 04030, Mexico

2 Medical Director. Oraya Therapeutics, Inc. 8000 Jarvis Ave. Newark, CA 94560, USA

3 Ocular Image Department, Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México, 46 Vicente García Torres, Mexico DF 04030, Mexico

4 Ophthalmology Department, Denver Health Medical Center. 777 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80204, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Ophthalmology 2010, 10:8  doi:10.1186/1471-2415-10-8

Published: 24 March 2010



To assess the reliability of the measurements obtained with the PalmScan™, when compared with another standardized A-mode ultrasound device, and assess the consistency and correlation between the two methods.


Transversal, descriptive, and comparative study. We recorded the axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and lens thickness (LT) obtained with two A-mode ultrasounds (PalmScan™ A2000 and Eye Cubed™) using an immersion technique. We compared the measurements with a two-sample t-test. Agreement between the two devices was assessed with Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement.


70 eyes of 70 patients were enrolled in this study. The measurements with the Eye Cubed™ of AL and ACD were shorter than the measurements taken by the PalmScan™. The differences were not statistically significant regarding AL (p < 0.4) but significant regarding ACD (p < 0.001). The highest agreement between the two devices was obtained during LT measurement. The PalmScan™ measurements were shorter, but not statistically significantly (p < 0.2).


The values of AL and LT, obtained with both devices are not identical, but within the limits of agreement. The agreement is not affected by the magnitude of the ocular dimensions (but only between range of 20 mm to 27 mm of AL and 3.5 mm to 5.7 mm of LT). A correction of about 0.5 D could be considered if an intraocular lens is being calculated. However due to the large variability of the results, the authors recommend discretion in using this conversion factor, and to adjust the power of the intraocular lenses based upon the personal experience of the surgeon.