Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the keratometric measurements of Verion Image Guided System with an optical biometer (Zeiss IOLMaster 500, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and an automated keratorefractometer (AKR) (Topcon KR-8900, Topcon, Japan). In this prospective clinical trial, the right eyes of 52 patients with cataract were examined (mean age 62.25 ± 12.16 years). The measurements were taken by the three systems in a random order. Keratometric data, magnitude of astigmatism, and astigmatic axis measurements from all three instruments were compared. The results were evaluated using, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland–Altman plots, and paired samples t tests. The mean flat/steep K of Verion, IOLMaster, and AKR were 43.22 ± 1.38D/44.23 ± 1.46D, 43.07 ± 1.26D/44.05 ± 1.34D, and 43.07 ± 1.31D/43.89 ± 1.42D, respectively. Flat K readings of Verion were higher than IOLMaster and AKR (p < 0.05 for both). Steep K readings were different for all three (p < 0.05). The magnitude of astigmatism by Verion and IOLMaster were 0.98 ± 0.65D and 0.98 ± 0.59D (p = 0.88). The mean astigmatism measured by the AKR was 0.82 ± 0.62D, less than the other two instruments (p < 0.001). Astigmatic axis measurements of Verion and AKR differed <10° in 38, between 10° and 20° in 5, and >20° in 9 eyes; the same difference was 30, 11, and 11 eyes, respectively, between Verion and IOLMaster. Although, keratometric and astigmatic results obtained from Verion were not completely interchangeable with IOLMaster and AKR, especially the agreement between Verion and IOLMaster was excellent with ICCs close to one. However, there were pronounced astigmatic axis measurement differences between three instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen Y-A, Hirnschall N, Findl O (2011) Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:513–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Avni I, Zadok D (2007) Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 143:48–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Symes RJ, Ursell PG (2011) Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:295–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nemeth G, Szalai E, Hassan Z, Lipecz A, Berta A, Modis L Jr (2015) Repeatability data and agreement of keratometry with the VERION system compared to the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg 31(5):333–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen YA, Hirnschall N, Findl O (2011) Evaluation of 2 new optical biometry devices and comparison with the current gold standard biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 37(3):513–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaswin G, Rousseau A, Mgarrech M, Barreau E, Labetoulle M (2014) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation results with a new optical biometry device: comparison with the gold standard. J Cataract Refract Surg 40:593–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rohrer K, Frueh BE, Wälti R, Clemetson IA, Tappeiner C, Goldblum D (2009) Comparison and evaluation of ocular biometry using a new noncontact optical low-coherence reflectometer. Ophthalmology 116:2087–2092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabsilber TM, Jepsen C, Auffarth GU, Holzer MP (2010) Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:230–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cruysberg LPJ, Doors M, Verbakel F, Berendschot TTJM, De Brabander J, Nuijts RMMA (2010) Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 94:106–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, Loo VP, Subrayan V (2011) Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond) 25(6):717–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lopez de la Fuente C, Sanchez-Cano A, Segura F, Pinilla I (2014) Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes. Biomed Res Int 2014:498080

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Shirayama M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Koch DD (2009) Comparison of corneal powers obtained from 4 different devices. Am J Ophthalmol 148(4):528–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bullimore MA, Buehren T, Bissmann W (2013) Agreement between a partial coherence interferometer and 2 manual keratometers. J Cataract Refract Surg 39(10):1550–1560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang J, Liao N, Savini G, Bao F, Yu Y, Lu W, Hu Q, Wang Q (2014) Comparison of anterior segment measurements with scheimpflug/placido photography-based topography system and IOLMaster partial coherence interferometry in patients with cataracts. J Ophthalmol 2014:540760

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Nemeth J, Fekete O, Pesztenlehrer N (2003) Optical and ultrasound measurement of axial length and anterior chamber depth for intraocular lens calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 29:85–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Huynh SC, Mai TQ, Kifley A, Wang JJ, Rose KA, Mitchell P (2006) An evaluation of keratometry in 6-year-old children. Cornea 25:383–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma JJ, Tseng SS (2008) Simple method for accurate alignment in toric phakic and aphakic intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:1631–1636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All authors contributed equally to the formation of the manuscript. There were no additional contributors. There are no sources of funding for this study and no financial interests to disclose for any of the authors. This study was presented in part at the XXXIII Congress of the ESCRS, 5–9 Sept. 2015, Fira Gran Via, Barcelona, Spain.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Fevzi Çakmak Caddesi, 06490, Bahçelievler, Ankara, Turkey

    Leyla Asena, Sirel Gür Güngör & Ahmet Akman

Authors
  1. Leyla Asena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sirel Gür Güngör
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet Akman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leyla Asena.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asena, L., Güngör, S.G. & Akman, A. Comparison of keratometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image Guided System with optical biometry and auto-keratorefractometer. Int Ophthalmol 37, 391–399 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0274-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0274-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation