Refractive indices used by the Haag-Streit Lenstar to calculate axial biometric dimensions

PURPOSE To estimate refractive indices used by the Lenstar biometer to translate measured optical path lengths into geometrical path lengths within the eye. METHODS Axial lengths of model eyes were determined using the IOLMaster and Lenstar biometers; comparing those lengths gave an overall eye refractive index estimate for the Lenstar. Using the Lenstar Graphical User Interface, we noticed that boundaries between media could be manipulated and opposite changes in optical path lengths on either side of the boundary could be introduced. Those ratios were combined with the overall eye refractive index to estimate separate refractive indices. Furthermore, Haag-Streit provided us with a template to obtain 'air thicknesses' to compare with geometrical distances. RESULTS The axial length estimates obtained using the IOLMaster and the Lenstar agreed to within 0.01 mm. Estimates of group refractive indices used in the Lenstar were 1.340, 1.341, 1.415, and 1.354 for cornea, aqueous, lens, and overall eye, respectively. Those refractive indices did not match those of schematic eyes, but were close in the cases of aqueous and lens. Linear equations relating air thicknesses to geometrical thicknesses were consistent with our findings. CONCLUSION The Lenstar uses different refractive indices for different ocular media. Some of the refractive indices, such as that for the cornea, are not physiological; therefore, it is likely that the calibrations in the instrument correspond to instrument-specific corrections and are not the real optical path lengths.

Editorial: Measuring refractive index distribution in the human eye lens

Non-invasive measurements of the age dependence of refractive index distribution in human eye lenses in vitro using a novel X-ray Talbot Interferometry method. In their paper, the authors make frequent reference to our own work in which we employed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to make similar non-invasive measurements of the refractive index distribution in the human eye lens [2, 3]. Prior to the current work, ours was the only method for making such measurements both non-invasively and without prior assumptions about the shape of the refractive index distribution. For this reason, the latest work is to be welcomed. However at several points in the paper, Pierscionek et al. [1] make statements about our technique which are factually incorrect...