Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of keratometry data using handheld and table-mounted instruments in healthy adults

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

Abstract

Purpose

To compare keratometry data between the handheld Retinomax K-plus 3 and the table-mounted IOLMaster 700.

Methods

Healthy adult volunteers were prospectively recruited to the study. All participants underwent 3 consecutive keratometry measurements using the Retinomax K-plus 3 and a single biometry assessment using the IOLMaster 700. Differences between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 were assessed using Wilcoxon test for paired samples, Spearman correlation, Bland–Altman and mountain plots.

Result

Twenty-eight healthy subjects with a median age of 37 years (interquartile range (IQR) 28–44 years) were included in the study. The median mean keratometry (mean K) reading was higher using the Retinomax K-plus 3 (44.04D; IQR 42.96–45.61D) compared to the IOLMaster 700 (43.78D; IQR 43.22–44.90D, p < 0.01), with a mean difference of 0.18D (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11–0.23D). Mean K readings were highly correlated between the 2 devices (r = 0.995, p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed 95% limits of agreement between −0.14D and 0.49D. Frequency histogram of mean K reading differences between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 showed that 56% of cases were between ± 0.2D, 93% of cases were between ± 0.4D and all cases were between ± 0.5D. Mean corneal astigmatism measurement was higher using the Retinomax K-plus 3 (1.01 ± 0.40D) compared to the IOLMaster 700 (0.77 ± 0.36D), with a mean difference of 0.23 ± 0.37D (p < 0.01) between the devices.

Conclusions

A good agreement exists between the Retinomax K-plus 3 and the IOLMaster 700 regarding keratometry readings. This enables cataract surgeons to safely use the Retinomax K-plus 3 device when indicated.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Accesses to data will be given upon request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

IQR:

Interquartile range

K:

Keratometry

CI:

Confidential interval

IOL:

Intraocular lens

SS-OCT:

Swept source ocular coherence tomography

K1:

Minimum keratometry

K2:

Maximum keratometry

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

D:

Diopter

References

  1. Kolega MS et al (2015) Comparison of IOL–master and ultrasound biometry in preoperative intra ocular lens (IOL) power calculation. Coll Antropol 39(1):233–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS (2008) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19(1):13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Shajari M et al (2017) Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol 178:58–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roessler GF et al (2012) Accuracy of intraocular lens power calculation using partial coherence interferometry in patients with high myopia. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 32(3):228–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kunavisarut P et al (2012) Accuracy and reliability of IOL master and A-scan immersion biometry in silicone oil-filled eyes. Eye (Lond) 26(10):1344–1348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yu SS, Song H, Tang X (2017) Repeatability of ophtha top topography and comparison with IOL-master and Lenstarls900 in cataract patients. Int J Ophthalmol 10(11):1703–1709

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Borchert M et al (2008) Testability of the Retinomax autorefractor and IOLMaster in preschool children: the Multi-ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology 115(8):1422–1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Akman A, Asena L, Gungor SG (2016) Evaluation and comparison of the new swept source OCT-based IOLMaster 700 with the IOLMaster 500. Br J Ophthalmol 100(9):1201–1205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang Q et al (2012) A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices. PLoS One. 7(9):e45607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kiraly L et al (2017) Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements between four different devices. J Ophthalmol 2017:6181405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karakosta A et al (2012) Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: one eye or two? Am J Ophthalmol 153(3):571–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Monti KL (1995) Folded empirical distribution function curves—mountain plots. Am Stat 49(4):342–345

    Google Scholar 

  15. Liang CL et al (2004) Comparison of the handheld Retinomax K-Plus2 and on-table autokeratometers in children with and without cycloplegia. J Cataract Refract Surg 30(3):669–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gauvin M, Wallerstein A (2018) AstigMATIC: an automatic tool for standard astigmatism vector analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 18(1):255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cordonnier M (2006) Screening for refractive errors in children. Compr Ophthalmol Update 7(2):63–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cordonnier M et al (1998) How accurate is the hand-held refractor Retinomax(R) in measuring cycloplegic refraction: a further evaluation. Strabismus 6(3):133–142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cordonnier M, Kallay O (2001) Non-cycloplegic screening for refractive errors in children with the hand-held autorefractor Retinomax: final results and comparison with non-cycloplegic photoscreening. Strabismus 9(2):59–70

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Steele G, Ireland D, Block S (2003) Cycloplegic autorefraction results in pre-school children using the nikon retinomax plus and the welch allyn suresight. Optom Vis Sci 80(8):573–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ying GS et al (2011) ROC analysis of the accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, retinomax autorefractor, and suresight vision screener for preschool vision screening. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52(13):9658–9664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Isenberg SJ et al (2004) Corneal topography of neonates and infants. Arch Ophthalmol 122(12):1767–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Hagar Olshaker, Asaf Achiron, Gad Dotan, Issac Levy, Assaf Gershoni, Irit Bahar & Uri Elbaz

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva, Israel

    Hagar Olshaker, Asaf Achiron, Gad Dotan, Issac Levy, Assaf Gershoni, Irit Bahar & Uri Elbaz

  3. Department of Ophthalmology, The Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Ortal Buhbut

  4. Department of Ophthalmology, Kymenlaakso Central Hospital, Kotka, Finland

    Raimo Tuuminen

Authors
  1. Hagar Olshaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ortal Buhbut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asaf Achiron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gad Dotan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Issac Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Raimo Tuuminen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Assaf Gershoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Irit Bahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Uri Elbaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Uri Elbaz contributed to conceptualization; Uri Elbaz, Irit Bahar, Raimo Tuuminen and Gad Dotan were involved in methodology; Hagar Olshaker, Ortal Buhbut, Asaf Achiron, Gad Dotan, Issac Levy and Assaf Gershoni contributed to formal analysis and investigation; Hagar Olshaker and Ortal Buhbut were involved in writing—original draft preparation; Asaf Achiron, Gad Dotan, Issac Levy, Raimo Tuuminen, Assaf Gershoni, Irit Bahar, and Uri Elbaz contributed to writing—review and editing; and Uri Elbaz, Irit Bahar, Raimo Tuuminen and Gad Dotan were involved in supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uri Elbaz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.

Consent to participate

Freely given, informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from participants.

Consent to publish

Consent from participants to publish their data prior to submitting their paper to a journal was granted.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Reflective pattern of 18 light beams in both devices. A: IOLMaster; B: Retinomax.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olshaker, H., Buhbut, O., Achiron, A. et al. Comparison of keratometry data using handheld and table-mounted instruments in healthy adults. Int Ophthalmol 41, 3451–3458 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01909-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01909-8

Search

Navigation