&lt;p&gt;Repeatability of OCT-Based versus Scheimpflug- and Reflection-Based Keratometry in Patients with Hyperosmolar and Normal Tear Film&lt;/p&gt;

Gjerdrum, Bjørn; Gundersen, Kjell Gunnar; Lundmark, Per Olof; Aakre, Bente Monica

doi:10.2147/opth.s280868

Cited by 21 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…P-values were adjusted with the Holm–Bonferroni method for multiple comparisons. 29 , 30 Since two eyes from one subject are related, linear and logistic mixed-effects models were used to analyze data from both eyes of each subject. Such models are designed for modeling continuous correlated hierarchical/multilevel data, and one of the main strengths is the ability to handle unbalanced data.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, some studies have shown lower repeatability of OCT-based keratometry compared to reflectometry or Scheimpflug-based keratometry. [26][27][28][29] Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) is the most common LVC procedure, with more than 16 million procedures globally to 2015. 30 The volumes in the US and Europe have been about 1.5 million surgeries per year since 2010.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Gjerdrum¹,

Gundersen²,

Lundmark³

et al. 2021

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the refractive predictability of ray tracing IOL calculations based on OCT data versus traditional IOL calculation formulas based on reflectometry in patients with a history of previous myopic laser vision correction (LVC). Patients and Methods This was a prospective interventional single-arm study of IOL calculations for cataract and refractive lens exchange (RLE) patients with a history of myopic LVC. Preoperative biometric data were collected using an optical low coherence reflectometry (OLCR) device (Haag-Streit Lenstar 900) and two optical coherence tomography (OCT) devices (Tomey Casia SS-1000 and Heidelberg Engineering Anterion). Traditional post LVC formulas (Barret True-K no-history and Haigis-L) with reflectometry data, and ray tracing IOL calculation software (OKULIX, Panopsis GmbH, Mainz, Germany) with OCT data were used to calculate IOL power. Follow-up examination was 2 to 3 months after surgery. The main outcome measure, refractive prediction error (RPE), was calculated as the achieved postoperative refraction minus the predicted refraction. Results We found that the best ray tracing combination (Anterion-OKULIX) resulted in an arithmetic prediction error statistically significantly lower than that achieved with the best formula calculation (Barret True-K no-history) (−0.13 D and −0.32 D, respectively, adjusted p = 0.01), while the Barret TK NH had the lowest SD. The absolute prediction error was 0.26 D and 0.35 D for Anterion-OKULIX and Barret TK NH, respectively, but this was not statistically significantly different. The Anterion-OKULIX calculation also had the highest percentage of eyes within ± 0.25, compared to both formulas and within ±0.50 and ±0.75 compared to the Haigis-L ( p = 0.03). Conclusion Ray tracing calculation based on OCT data from the Anterion device can yield similar or better results than traditional post LVC formulas. Ray tracing calculations are based on individual measurements and do not rely on the ocular history of the patient and are therefore applicable for any patient, also without previous refractive surgery.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Gjerdrum¹,

Gundersen²,

Lundmark³

et al. 2021

OPTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For anterior segment measurements, studies have shown variable repeatability and reproducibility between Pentacam ® HR and Anterion, and between Anterion and other OCT-based devices, such as CASIA (Tomey Corporation, Nagoya, Japan) [6][7][8][9][10]. With regard to the latest research, Brunner et al [11] investigated repeatability coefficients and limits of agreement comparing Pentacam HR, Orbscan IIz, and Tomey Casia SS-1000 measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anterior-Segment Swept-Source Ocular Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging Agreement for Keratometry and Pupil Measurements in Healthy Eyes

Pérez-Bartolomé

Rocha‐de‐Lossada

Sánchez‐González

et al. 2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines agreement between the devices Anterion® and Pentacam HR® used for corneal and pupil measurements in healthy eyes. The parameters compared between the two devices were: anterior Km (D), anterior K2 (D), anterior K1 (D), anterior K1 axis (°), anterior astigmatism (D), anterior K max (D), posterior Km (D), posterior K2 (D), posterior K1 (D), posterior K1 axis (°), posterior astigmatism (D), CCT (µm), thinnest point thickness (µm), thinnest point X-coordinate (mm), thinnest point Y-coordinate (mm), pupil diameter (mm), pupil center-corneal vertex distance (mm) (angle kappa), pupil centroid angle (°), pupil centroid X-coordinate (mm), and pupil centroid Y-coordinate (mm). The Student’s t test for independent samples identified significant differences (p < 0.005) between devices for the measurements anterior and posterior flat K axis, posterior flat K, steep K, and mean K. For these last three measurements, although significant, none of the differences were clinically relevant. Corneal power and thickness measurements except Kf axis showed excellent agreement between Anterion and Pentacam. In a clinical setting we would not recommend the interchangeable use of Pentacam and Anterion for measurement of pupil parameters.

show abstract

“…We had also previous compared the performance of CASIAII and ANTERION for the measurement of the angle parameters 16 . We also acknowledged that previous publications compared Tomey CASIA SS-1000 and ANTERION for keratometry 17 and other ocular biometric parameters 18 but either study involve the new CASIAII that was used in our study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Two Novel Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Devices to A Partial Coherence Interferometry-Based Biometer

Chan

Chiu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the repeatability and agreement of cornea and biometry measurements obtained with two swept-source optical coherence tomography (SSOCT) and a partial coherence interferometry-based device.METHODS This is a cross-sectional study. Forty-eight eyes of 48 patients had three consecutive measurements for ANTERION (Heidelberg Engineering, Germany), CASIAII (Tomey, Japan) and IOLMaster500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, USA) on the same visit. Mean keratometry (Km), central cornea thickness (CCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD) and axial length (AL) were recorded. Corneal astigmatic measurements were converted into vector components – J0 and J45. Intra-device repeatability and agreements of measurements amongst the devices were evaluated using repeatability coefficients (RCs) and Bland-Altman plots, respectively. RESULTS All devices demonstrated comparable repeatability for Km (p≥0.138). ANTERION had the lowest RC for J0 amongst the devices (p≤0.039). Systematic difference was found for the Km and J0 obtained with IOLMaster500 compared to either SSOCTs (p≤0.010). The ACD and AL measured by IOLMaster500 showed a higher RC compared with either SSOCTs (p<0.002). Systematic difference was found in CCT and ACD between the two SSOCTs (p<0.001), and in AL between ANTERION and IOLMaster500 (p<0.001), with a mean difference of 1.6 µm, 0.022mm and 0.021 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Both SSOCTs demonstrated smaller test-retest variability for measuring ACD and AL compared with IOLMaster500. There were significant disagreement in keratometry and AL measurements between the SSOCTs and PCI-based device; their measurements should not be considered as interchangeable but the disagreement could be refined by readjustment of intraocular lens constant in clinical practice.

show abstract

<p>Repeatability of OCT-Based versus Scheimpflug- and Reflection-Based Keratometry in Patients with Hyperosmolar and Normal Tear Film</p>

Cited by 21 publications

References 42 publications

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Refractive Precision of Ray Tracing IOL Calculations Based on OCT Data versus Traditional IOL Calculation Formulas Based on Reflectometry in Patients with a History of Laser Vision Correction for Myopia

Anterior-Segment Swept-Source Ocular Coherence Tomography and Scheimpflug Imaging Agreement for Keratometry and Pupil Measurements in Healthy Eyes

Comparison of Two Novel Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography Devices to A Partial Coherence Interferometry-Based Biometer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About