The reproducibility of the Lenstar was excellent. Small but significant differences exist between the Lenstar, Visante OCT and the IOLMaster. Therefore, measurements of the Lenstar, AS-OCT and IOLMaster are not interchangeable. Despite the significant difference between AL measurements, there is no clinically significant difference in the IOL power calculation results.

Total ocular and corneal aberrations are not comparable when measured with different aberrometers. Hartmann-Shack aberrometers showed the best repeatability for total ocular aberrations and iTrace for corneal aberrations. It would be worthwhile in the future to evaluate aberrometers in patients with more aberrant eyes.

BackgroundThe repeatability and interchangeability of imaging devices measuring central corneal thickness (CCT) and anterior chamber depth (ACD) are important in the assessment of patients considering refractive surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement of CCT and ACD measurements using three imaging technologies in healthy eyes and in eyes after phakic intraocular lens implantation (pIOL).MethodsIn this comparative study, CCT and ACD were measured using anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT), Orbscan II, and Pentacam in 33 healthy volunteers (66 eyes) and 22 patients (42 eyes) after pIOL implantation. Intraobserver repeatability was evaluated for all three devices in the healthy volunteer group.ResultsPairwise comparison of CCT measurements showed significant differences between all devices (P < 0.001), except for the AS-OCT and Orbscan II in the healthy volunteer group (P = 0.422) and the Orbscan II and Pentacam in the pIOL group (P = 0.214). ACD measurements demonstrated significant differences between all pairwise comparisons in both groups (P ≤ 0.001). Intraobserver reliability was high for CCT and ACD measurements in the healthy volunteer group, with coefficients of variation ranging from 0.6% to 1.2% and 0.4% to 0.5% respectively.ConclusionsCCT and ACD measurements using AS-OCT, Orbscan II, and Pentacam demonstrated high intraobserver reliability. However, these devices should not be used interchangeably for measurements of CCT and ACD in healthy subject and patients after pIOL implantation.

Vector analysis showed comparable corneal astigmatism measurements using automated, manual, and simulated keratometry. Pentacam equivalent K values were not comparable with those of the other keratometers. The repeatability of astigmatism magnitudes was acceptable; however, the repeatability of astigmatism meridians was moderate. The SMI Reference Unit showed good interobserver variability.

Patients with the aspheric multifocal IOL had significantly better near vision than patients with the multifocal spherical IOL. The UDVA, CDVA, intraocular straylight, night-vision symptoms, and contrast sensitivity were similar between the 2 groups.

To assess whether the eye's optical imperfections are relevant for hyperacute vision, we measured ocular wave aberrations, visual hyperacuity, and acuity thresholds in 31 eyes of young adults. Although there was a significant positive correlation between the subjects' performance in Vernier- and Landolt-optotype acuity tasks, we found clear differences in how far both acuity measures correlate with the eyes' optics. Landolt acuity thresholds were significantly better in eyes with low higher order aberrations and high visual Strehl ratios ( r 2 = 0.22, p = 0.009), and significantly positively correlated with axial length ( r 2 = 0.15, p = 0.03). A retinal image quality metric, calculated as two-dimensional correlation between perfect and actual retinal image, was also correlated with Landolt acuity thresholds ( r 2 = 0.27, p = 0.003). No such correlations were found with Vernier acuity performance ( r 2 < 0.03, p > 0.3). Based on these results, hyperacuity thresholds are, contrary to resolution acuity, not affected by higher order aberrations of the eye.