Premium
Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power
Author(s) -
Whang WoongJoo,
Byun YongSoo,
Joo ChounKi
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
clinical and experimental ophthalmology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.3
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1442-9071
pISSN - 1442-6404
DOI - 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2012.02777.x
Subject(s) - keratometer , scheimpflug principle , dioptre , medicine , ophthalmology , astigmatism , cataract surgery , corneal topography , optometry , phacoemulsification , cornea , optics , visual acuity , physics
A bstract Background: To compare keratometric values obtained with a manual keratometer (Topcon), an automated keratometer (Canon), an Orbscan II (Bausch & Lomb), the IOLMaster keratometer (Carl‐Zeiss) and the Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera (Oculus) in cataract surgery, and to characterize the refractive outcomes generated using each device. Design: Retrospective study conducted at a tertiary university hospital. Participants: Sixty‐nine eyes of 69 patients were analysed. Methods: The keratometric values obtained with different devices (manual keratometer, automated keratometer, corneal topography, IOLMaster keratometer and Scheimpflug camera) were employed for intraocular lens power calculation. Multiple comparisons of averaged keratometric value were conducted, and the averaged keratometric value was used to calculate the predicted refraction. The absolute values of corneal astigmatism were calculated and also compared. Main Outcome Measures: Mean keratometric value, absolute value of astigmatism, mean error and mean absolute error from each device. Results: The mean keratometric values generated by manual keratometer, automated keratometry, corneal topography, IOLMaster keratometer and the Pentacam Scheimpflug system were 43.95 ± 1.39, 43.91 ± 1.39, 44.67 ± 1.53, 44.03 ± 1.41 and 42.96 ± 1.39 diopter, respectively. The absolute value of astigmatism determined via manual keratometer, automated keratometer, corneal topography, IOLMaster keratometer and the Pentacam Scheimpflug system were 0.95 ± 0.60, 0.99 ± 0.69, 1.14 ± 0.74, 1.11 ± 0.65 and 1.03 ± 0.73 diopter, respectively. The corneal topography showed statistically significant differences with other devices and produced the greater value in mean absolute errors (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Keratometric values with standard devices are a good choice for cataract surgery, whereas the corneal topography is not an appropriate method for the assessment of preoperative keratometric values.