Literature DB >> 25820577

Precision of 5 different keratometry devices.

Jonas Vejvad Nørskov Laursen1,2, Peter Jeppesen3, Thomas Olsen3.   

Abstract

To compare the precision among currently available keratometry devices. The corneal power was measured on two separate visits with the Nidek TonoRef II Autorefractor/Keratometer, the Zeiss IOLMaster 500, the Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900, the Oculus Pentacam, and the Oculus Keratograph 4M. The precision was evaluated as the mean absolute intersession difference (MAD) between the corneal power measurements for each patient. Only the non-operated eye was included in the study. The Keratograph was found to have the highest MAD (0.215 D), which was significantly different from the other devices except for the IOLMaster. Nidek ARK had the lowest MAD (0.097 D), but this was not significant compared to Pentacam (0.124 D), Lenstar (0.132 D), or IOLMaster (0.140 D). Only one out of 29 patients had a precision difference exceeding 0.25 D with the Nidek ARK. Among the devices studied, the Nidek ARK was found to have the highest and the Keratograph was found to have to the lowest precision for the measurement of corneal power.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Corneal power; Keratometry; Measurement reliability; Precision

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25820577     DOI: 10.1007/s10792-015-0069-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0165-5701            Impact factor:   2.031


  16 in total

1.  Precision of biometry, keratometry, and refractive measurements with a partial coherence interferometry-keratometry device.

Authors:  H John Shammas; Steven Chan
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.351

2.  Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery.

Authors:  Richard J Symes; Miranda J Say; Paul G Ursell
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.351

Review 3.  Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review.

Authors:  Thomas Olsen
Journal:  Acta Ophthalmol Scand       Date:  2007-04-02

4.  Scheimpflug photography keratometry readings for routine intraocular lens power calculation.

Authors:  H John Shammas; Kenneth J Hoffer; Maya C Shammas
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.351

5.  A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients.

Authors:  P J Buckhurst; J S Wolffsohn; S Shah; S A Naroo; L N Davies; E J Berrow
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 4.638

6.  Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values.

Authors:  Richard J Symes; Paul G Ursell
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.351

7.  Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices.

Authors:  Tanja M Rabsilber; Charlotte Jepsen; Gerd U Auffarth; Mike P Holzer
Journal:  J Cataract Refract Surg       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.351

8.  Intraocular lens power measured by partial coherence interferometry.

Authors:  Yi-Ting Hsieh; I-Jong Wang
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.973

9.  Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer.

Authors:  L P J Cruysberg; M Doors; F Verbakel; T T J M Berendschot; J De Brabander; R M M A Nuijts
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 4.638

10.  Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL Master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations.

Authors:  Nicholas Karunaratne
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 4.207

View more
  3 in total

1.  Placido disk-based topography versus high-resolution rotating Scheimpflug camera for corneal power measurements in keratoconic and post-LASIK eyes: reliability and agreement.

Authors:  Rachele R Penna; Ugo de Sanctis; Martina Catalano; Luca Brusasco; Federico M Grignolo
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-03-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Accuracy of two devices and three different calculation methods for predicting residual astigmatism after intraocular lens implantation.

Authors:  Kendall Bicknell; Christopher Helpert; Kourtney Dwyer; Brett McKnight; Sonali Singh; Samuel Fulcher; Derrick Fung
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2020-03-03

3.  Ocular biometric measurements in cataract surgery candidates in Portugal.

Authors:  Tiago B Ferreira; Kenneth J Hoffer; Filomena Ribeiro; Paulo Ribeiro; João G O'Neill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.