Repeatability and Agreement of Central Corneal Thickness and Keratometry Measurements between Four Different Devices

Laszlo Kiraly, Jana Stange, Kathleen S Kunert, Saadettin Sel, Laszlo Kiraly, Jana Stange, Kathleen S Kunert, Saadettin Sel

Abstract

Background. To estimate repeatability and comparability of central corneal thickness (CCT) and keratometry measurements obtained by four different devices in healthy eyes. Methods. Fifty-five healthy eyes from 55 volunteers were enrolled in this study. CCT (IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and Cirrus HD-OCT) and keratometry readings (IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign) were measured. For statistical analysis, the corneal spherocylinder was converted into power vectors (J0, J45). Repeatability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement of measurements between the devices was evaluated by the Bland-Altman method. Results. The analysis of repeatability of CCT data of IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and Cirrus HD-OCT showed high ICCs (range 0.995 to 0.999). The comparison of CCT measurements revealed statistically significant differences between Pentacam HR versus IOLMaster 700 (p < 0.0001) and Pentacam HR versus Cirrus HD-OCT (p < 0.0001), respectively. There was no difference in CCT measurements between IOLMaster 700 and Cirrus HD-OCT (p = 0.519). The repeatability of keratometry readings (J0 and J45) of IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign was also high with ICCs ranging from 0.974 to 0.999. The Pentacam HR revealed significantly higher J0 in comparison to IOLMaster 700 (p = 0.009) and iDesign (p = 0.041); however, no significant difference was between IOLMaster 700 and iDesign (p = 0.426). Comparison of J45 showed no significant difference between IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, and iDesign. These results were in accordance with Bland-Altman plots. Conclusion. In clinical practice, the devices analyzed should not be used interchangeably due to low agreement regarding CCT as well as keratometry readings.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement of CCT measurements between the IOLMaster 700 and Cirrus HD-OCT devices. The line shows the mean difference, and the top and bottom dashed lines show the upper and lower 95% LoA, respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement of J0 vector components between the IOLMaster 700 and iDesign devices. The line shows the mean difference, and the top and bottom dashed lines show the upper and lower 95% LoA, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement of J45 vector components between the Pentacam HR and IOLMaster 700 devices. The line shows the mean difference, and the top and bottom dashed lines show the upper and lower 95% LoA, respectively.
Figure 4
Figure 4
A Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement of J45 vector components between the Pentacam HR and iDesign devices. The line shows the mean difference, and the top and bottom dashed lines show the upper and lower 95% LoA, respectively.
Figure 5
Figure 5
A Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement of J45 vector components between the IOLMaster 700 and iDesign devices. The line shows the mean difference, and the top and bottom dashed lines show the upper and lower 95% LoA, respectively.

References

    1. Santhiago M. R., Giacomin N. T., Smadja D., Bechara S. J. Ectasia risk factors in refractive surgery. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2016;10:713–720. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S51313.
    1. Haigis W. Occurrence of erroneous anterior chamber depth in the SRK/T formula. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 1993;19(3):442–446.
    1. Tajbakhsh Z., Salouti R., Nowroozzadeh M. H., Aghazadeh-Amiri M., Tabatabaee S., Zamani M. Comparison of keratometry measurements using the Pentacam HR, the Orbscan IIz, and the TMS-4 topographer. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. 2012;32(6):539–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00942.x.
    1. Wegener A., Laser-Junga H. Photography of the anterior eye segment according to Scheimpflug’s principle: options and limitations - a review. Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology. 2009;37(1):144–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2009.02018.x.
    1. Marsich M. W., Bullimore M. A. The repeatability of corneal thickness measures. Cornea. 2000;19(6):792–795.
    1. Barkana Y., Gerber Y., Elbaz U., et al. Central corneal thickness measurement with the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, optical low-coherence reflectometry pachymeter, and ultrasound pachymetry. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2005;31(9):1729–1735. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.03.058.
    1. Srivannaboon S., Chirapapaisan C., Chonpimai P., Loket S. Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography-based optical biometer. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2015;41(10):2224–2232. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.03.019.
    1. Grulkowski I., Liu J. J., Zhang J. Y., et al. Reproducibility of a long-range swept-source optical coherence tomography ocular biometry system and comparison with clinical biometers. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(11):2184–2190. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.007.
    1. Huang J., Pesudovs K., Wen D., et al. Comparison of anterior segment measurements with rotating Scheimpflug photography and partial coherence reflectometry. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2011;37(2):341–348. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.044.
    1. McAlinden C., Khadka J., Pesudovs K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2011;52(10):7731–7737. doi: 10.1167/iovs.10-7093.
    1. Zeiss. Cirrus HD-OCT user manual. Car LZEISS MEDITEC Ag. 2011. .
    1. Schallhorn S., Brown M., Venter J., Teenan D., Hettinger K., Yamamoto H. Early clinical outcomes of wavefront-guided myopic LASIK treatments using a new-generation Hartmann-Shack aberrometer. Journal of Refractive Surgery. 2014;30(1):14–21. doi: 10.3928/1081597X-20131029-02.
    1. Mejia Y., Galeano J. C. Corneal topographer based on the Hartmann test. Optometry and Vision Science. 2009;86(4):370–381.
    1. Thibos L. N., Wheeler W., Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optometry and Vision Science. 1997;74(6):367–375.
    1. Bland J. M., Altman D. G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–310.
    1. Kanellopoulos A. J., Asimellis G. Comparison of high-resolution Scheimpflug and high-frequency ultrasound biomicroscopy to anterior-segment OCT corneal thickness measurements. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2013;7:2239–2247. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S53718.
    1. Chen S., Huang J., Wen D., Chen W., Huang D., Wang Q. Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmologica. 2012;90(5):449–455. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2010.01947.x.
    1. Yu A., Zhao W., Savini G., et al. Evaluation of central corneal thickness using corneal dynamic Scheimpflug analyzer Corvis ST and comparison with Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug system and ultrasound pachymetry in normal eyes. Journal of Ophthalmology. 2015;2015:8. doi: 10.1155/2015/767012.767012
    1. Read S. A., Collins M. J., Iskander D. R., Davis B. A. Corneal topography with Scheimpflug imaging and videokeratography: comparative study of normal eyes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery. 2009;35(6):1072–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.01.020.
    1. Prakash G., Srivastava D., Choudhuri S. A novel Hartman Shack-based topography system: repeatability and agreement for corneal power with Scheimpflug+Placido topographer and rotating prism auto-keratorefractor. International Ophthalmology. 2015;35(6):869–880. doi: 10.1007/s10792-015-0065-7.
    1. Dong J., Tang M., Zhang Y., et al. Comparison of anterior segment biometric measurements between Pentacam HR and IOLMaster in normal and high myopic eyes. PloS One. 2015;10(11) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143181.e0143110
    1. Wang Q., Savini G., Hoffer K. J., et al. A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices. PloS One. 2012;7(9) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045607.e45607

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다