Validation of corneal topographic and aberrometric measurements obtained by color light-emitting diode reflection topography in healthy eyes

Piñero, David P.; Molina‐Martín, Ainhoa; Camps, Vicent J.; Sáiz, Dolores de Fez; Caballero, María Teresa Caballero

doi:10.1007/s00417-019-04453-5

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, statistically significant differences among devices have also been found in the magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism, with the highest values provided by the Cassini system. Likewise, these differences have also been found to be clinically relevant, with ranges of agreement between measurement systems over 0.45 D. This contrasts with the previous series showing no clinically relevant differences in anterior corneal astigmatism between Cassini and Pentacam systems [15,16,23]. Another comparative study between IOL-Master 500, Cassini, and Pentacam detected differences in the limit of statistical significance among devices for anterior keratometric astigmatism measures, but they were clinically relevant according to the Bland-Altman analysis [26].…”

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurecontrasting

confidence: 59%

“…Another comparative study between IOL-Master 500, Cassini, and Pentacam detected differences in the limit of statistical significance among devices for anterior keratometric astigmatism measures, but they were clinically relevant according to the Bland-Altman analysis [26]. Concerning total keratometric astigmatism measurements, differences among Pentacam and Cassini systems were found to be statistically significant as well as clinically relevant [15,16,26]. This suggests that one of the critical factors leading to relevant differences in the calculation of total corneal astigmatism among Pentacam and Cassini is the different modes of both technologies of characterizing the posterior corneal shape.…”

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurementioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the keratometric and total corneal astigmatism measures provided by three different technologies as well as to assess the level of interchangeability among them. Methods: A Prospective, comparative study enrolling 94 eyes from 53 patients (age, 29-77 years) was carried out. All participants were patients with the diagnosis of cataract or patients with a transparent crystalline lens but seeking surgical presbyopia correction. A complete eye examination was performed in all eyes, including corneal analysis with three different devices: IOL-Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), Cassini (i-Optics), and Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). Interchangeability of standard and total keratometric readings (equivalent keratometric readings for Pentacam) and astigmatism measures with these three systems were evaluated with the Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Significantly higher standard and total keratometric readings were obtained with the IOL-Master compared to the other two systems (p<0.001). Likewise, a significantly higher magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism was obtained with the Cassini system (p<0.001). Ranges of the agreement for corneal power measurements between devices varied from 0.58 D to 1.53 D, whereas they ranged from 0.46 D to 1.37 D for standard and total astigmatism measurements. Conclusion: Corneal power and astigmatism measures obtained with IOL-Master 700, Cassini, and Pentacam systems cannot be used interchangeably. The impact of these differences on the refractive predictability achieved with different types of intraocular lenses (IOL) should be evaluated in the future in order to define which is the best corneal evaluation approach for optimizing the IOL power calculations.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurecontrasting

confidence: 59%

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurementioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These values are also in a very good agreement with the repeatability values of ICC = 0.990 and CV = 0.37 ± 0.28% for the Keratograph determined in our study. For the Cassini topography system based on colour LEDs, Pinero et al 26 found an ICC of 0.997 for WTW diameter determination in a recently published study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Daily Variations of Corneal White-to-White Diameter Measured with Different Methods

Bandlitz¹,

Nakhoul²,

Kotliar³

2022

OPTO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose A precise determination of the corneal diameter is essential for the diagnosis of various ocular diseases, cataract and refractive surgery as well as for the selection and fitting of contact lenses. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between two automatic and one manual method for corneal diameter determination and to evaluate possible diurnal variations in corneal diameter. Patients and Methods Horizontal white-to-white corneal diameter of 20 volunteers was measured at three different fixed times of a day with three methods: Scheimpflug method (Pentacam HR, Oculus), placido based topography (Keratograph 5M, Oculus) and manual method using an image analysis software at a slitlamp (BQ900, Haag-Streit). Results The two-factorial analysis of variance could not show a significant effect of the different instruments (p = 0.117), the different time points (p = 0.506) and the interaction between instrument and time point (p = 0.182). Very good repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC, quartile coefficient of dispersion QCD) was found for all three devices. However, manual slitlamp measurements showed a higher QCD than the automatic measurements with the Keratograph 5M and the Pentacam HR at all measurement times. Conclusion The manual and automated methods used in the study to determine corneal diameter showed good agreement and repeatability. No significant diurnal variations of corneal diameter were observed during the period of time studied.

show abstract

“…0.96 and CoV , 0.5%. 7 Piñero et al 15,17 also demonstrated the high repeatability of such a device regarding the pachymetry values and the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces, except for the posterior astigmatism where the ICC was 0.876.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Intraobserver Repeatability of Tomographic, Pachymetric, and Anatomical Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Topographer

Serrano

Jaimes

Lucas

et al. 2021

Cornea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intraobserver repeatability of several corneal parameters in healthy eyes using a new swept-source optical coherence topographer.Methods: Fifty right eyes of 50 subjects were enrolled in this study. A single examiner performed 3 consecutive measurements using the Anterion swept-source optical coherence tomography. The following corneal parameters were evaluated: average keratometry (K), steep K, flat K, astigmatism, best fit sphere, and maximum keratometry on the anterior and posterior surfaces at 3 mm, average K, steep K, flat K, and astigmatism in the total corneal power map at 3 mm, central corneal thickness and thinnest point thickness in the pachymetric map, and corneal diameter. To assess the repeatability of the measurements, we calculated the following indexes: intrasubject SD (Sw), coefficient of variation, coefficient of repeatability, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: High repeatability was reported for all the evaluated corneal parameters, with Sw values lower than 0.027, coefficient of variation values lower than 0.066%, and coefficient of repeatability values lower than 0.187. ICC values showed a high correlation between measurements in all cases, being the lowest value for the astigmatism of the anterior surface (ICC = 0.92); for the rest, ICC values were larger than 0.98. Finally, we have not found statistically significant differences between repeated measurements (P . 0.05). Conclusions:The anterior segment measurements provided by the Anterion swept-source optical coherence tomography device show high intraobserver repeatability in healthy eyes.

show abstract

Validation of corneal topographic and aberrometric measurements obtained by color light-emitting diode reflection topography in healthy eyes

Cited by 7 publications

References 33 publications

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Daily Variations of Corneal White-to-White Diameter Measured with Different Methods

Intraobserver Repeatability of Tomographic, Pachymetric, and Anatomical Measurements in Healthy Eyes Using a New Swept-Source Optical Coherence Topographer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About