Evaluation of the EyeSys Model II Computerized Videokeratoscope. Part I: Clinical Assessment

Dave, Trusit; Ruston, David; Fowler, Colin

doi:10.1097/00006324-199809000-00019

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies have also reported similar findings when measurements were taken with manual keratometry and Placido-based topography. [16], [17] These devices were in poor agreement, although a good correlation between different keratometric methods was observed. [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

A Comprehensive Assessment of the Precision and Agreement of Anterior Corneal Power Measurements Obtained Using 8 Different Devices

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo comprehensively assess the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements using 8 different devices.MethodsThirty-five eyes from 35 healthy subjects were included in the prospective study. In the first session, a single examiner performed on each subject randomly measurements with the RC-5000 (Tomey Corp., Japan), KR-8000 (Topcon, Japan), IOLMaster (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Germany), E300 (Medmont International, Australia), Allegro Topolyzer (Wavelight AG, Germany), Vista (EyeSys, TX), Pentacam (Oculus, Germany) and Sirius (CSO, Italy). Measurements were repeated in the second session (1 to 2 weeks later). Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal power measurements were assessed based on the intrasession and intersession within-subject standard deviation (Sw), repeatability (2.77Sw), coefficient of variation (COV), and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was evaluated by 95% limits of agreement (LoA).ResultsAll devices demonstrated high repeatability and reproducibility of the keratometric values (2.77Sw<0.36D, COV<0.3%, ICC>0.98). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni post test showed statistically significant differences (P<0.01) among mean keratometric values of most instruments; the largest differences were observed between the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300. Good agreement (i.e., 95%LoA within ±0.5D) was found between most instruments for flat, steep and mean keratometry, except for EyeSys and Medmont. Repeatability and reproducibility of vectors J0 and J45 was good, as the ICCs were higher than 0.9, except J45 of Medmont and Pentacam. For the 95% LoAs of J0 and J45, they were all ≤ ±0.31 among any two paired devices.ConclusionsThe 8 devices showed excellent repeatability and reproducibility. The results obtained using the RC-5000, KR-8000, IOLMaster, Allegro Topolyzer, Pentacam and Sirius were comparable, suggesting that they could be used interchangeably in most clinical settings. Caution is warranted with the measurements of the EyeSys Vista and Medmont E300, which should not be used interchangeably with other devices due to lower agreement.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01587287

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

A Comprehensive Assessment of the Precision and Agreement of Anterior Corneal Power Measurements Obtained Using 8 Different Devices

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The data in the VOLPro maps were incomplete superiorly and nasally, suggestive of lid or nasal obstruction as seen in Placido-disk topographers. 18 The corresponding ''complete'' Pentacam maps were an extrapolated fictional representation as the elevation data acquired during imaging were incomplete. There was no indication during image acquisition that the height data were incomplete as the scans registered as being ''OK.''…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeatability of corneal first-surface wavefront aberrations measured with Pentacam corneal topography

Shankar

Taranath

Santhirathelagan

et al. 2008

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The separation of the 16 ring edges is measured objectively by the internal image analysis software of the instrument, at 1 degree intervals over 360 degrees, over a corneal diameter of 3 mm. 11 In addition, an eccentricity value is calculated to indicate the mean rate of corneal flattening using all rings, over a corneal diameter of approximately 9.2 mm. 12 Anterior chamber depth was measured with the IOLMaster and compared with measures from an A-scan applanation ultrasound device (Storz Omega Compu-Scan Biometric Ruler, Storz International, St Louis, MO, USA).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry

Santodomingo-Rubido

Mallen

Gilmartin

et al. 2002

British Journal of Ophthalmology

256

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A new commercially available device (IOLMaster, Zeiss Instruments) provides high resolution non-contact measurements of axial length (using partial coherent interferometry), anterior chamber depth, and corneal radius (using image analysis). The study evaluates the validity and repeatability of these measurements and compares the findings with those obtained from instrumentation currently used in clinical practice. Method: Measurements were taken on 52 subjects (104 eyes) aged 18-40 years with a range of mean spherical refractive error from +7.0 D to −9.50 D. IOLMaster measurements of anterior chamber depth and axial length were compared with A-scan applanation ultrasonography (Storz Omega) and those for corneal radius with a Javal-Schiötz keratometer (Topcon) and an EyeSys corneal videokeratoscope. Results: Axial length: the difference between IOLMaster and ultrasound measures was insignificant (0.02 (SD 0.32) mm, p = 0.47) with no bias across the range sampled (22.40-27.99 mm). Anterior chamber depth: significantly shorter depths than ultrasound were found with the IOLMaster (−0.06 (0.25) mm, p <0.02) with no bias across the range sampled (2.85-4.40 mm). Corneal radius: IOLMaster measurements matched more closely those of the keratometer than those of the videokeratoscope (mean difference −0.03 v −0.06 mm respectively), but were more variable (95% confidence 0.13 v 0.07 mm). The repeatability of all the above IOLMaster biometric measures was found to be of a high order with no significant bias across the measurement ranges sampled. Conclusions: The validity and repeatability of measurements provided by the IOLMaster will augment future studies in ocular biometry.

show abstract

Evaluation of the EyeSys Model II Computerized Videokeratoscope. Part I: Clinical Assessment

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

A Comprehensive Assessment of the Precision and Agreement of Anterior Corneal Power Measurements Obtained Using 8 Different Devices

A Comprehensive Assessment of the Precision and Agreement of Anterior Corneal Power Measurements Obtained Using 8 Different Devices

Repeatability of corneal first-surface wavefront aberrations measured with Pentacam corneal topography

A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About