Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)425-432
Number of pages8
JournalClinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Volume40
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2012 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.

Keywords

  • Automated keratometer
  • Corneal topography
  • IOLMaster
  • Manual keratometer
  • Pentacam

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of refractive outcomes using five devices for the assessment of preoperative corneal power'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this