Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agreement of keratometric readings measured using rotating Scheimpflug imaging, auto-refractokeratometer, and biograph in eyes with keratoconus

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

Abstract

Aim

To determine agreement in keratometric readings obtained using rotating Scheimpflug imaging with Pentacam, biograph with Lenstar LS900, and Topcon KR-8100P auto-keratorefractometer in eyes with different stages of keratoconus.

Methods

A total of 89 eyes of 58 patients with keratoconus were examined in this study, retrospectively. The eyes were divided into two groups: mild group (group 1: 42 eyes) (Amsler-Krumeich stage 1) and moderate-to-severe group (group 2: 47 eyes) (Amsler-Krumeich stage 2, 3, 4). The keratometric readings measured using the Pentacam Scheimpflug system, Lenstar LS900, and Topcon KR-8100P auto-keratorefractometer were compared between the groups. The effects of the measurements of anterior chamber depth, Q value, axial length, central corneal thickness (CCT), and maximum value of keratometry (Kmax) on the differences of devices for keratometric readings were investigated.

Results

The mean values of the keratometric readings obtained using the Lenstar were steeper than with the Pentacam and Topcon, especially in group 2. In group 1, the mean K2 values measured using the Lenstar were significantly steeper than with the Topcon (p < 0.05); however, the devices were accordant for the other keratometric readings. In group 2, there was an agreement between the Pentacam and Topcon for the mean K1 and Km values; however, there were significant differences between the devices for the other values. The Q value and CCT had a negative correlation, and Kmax had a positive correlation with the differences of Lenstar-Pentacam and Lenstar-Topcon (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

According to our results, Pentacam-Topcon and Pentacam-Lenstar can be used interchangeably for keratometry in mild stages of keratoconus. The keratometric readings of Lenstar were found steeper than the other devices with increasing grades of keratoconus. None of these devices can be used interchangeably in moderate-to-severe stages of keratoconus.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thebpatiphat N, Hammersmith KM, Rapuano CJ, Ayres BD, Cohen EJ (2007) Cataract surgery in keratoconus. Eye Contact Lens 33:244–246. https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0b013e318030c96d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kamiya K, Iijima K, Nobuyuki S, Mori Y, Miyata K, Yamaguchi T, Shimazaki J, Watanabe S, Maeda N (2018) Predictability of intraocular lens power calculation for cataract with keratoconus: a multicenter study. Sci Rep 22–8(1):1312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20040-w

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Shammas HJ (2004) Intraocular lens power calculations. SLACK Incorporated, Thorofare, USA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Holzer MP, Mamusa M, Auffarth GU (2009) Accuracy of a new partial coherence interferometry analyser for biometric measurements. Br J Ophthalmol 93:807–810. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.152736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sunderraj P (1992) Clinical comparison of automated and manual keratometry in pre-operative ocular biometry. Eye (Lond) 6:60–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1992.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M (2015) Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: comparison of 5 devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 41(5):1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.08.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hua Y, Xu Z, Qiu W et al (2016) Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and agreement of corneal power measurements obtained by Topcon KR-1W and iTrace. PLoS One 11:e0147086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, Naroo SA, Davies LN, Berrow EJ (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93:949–953. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2008.156554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoffer KJ, Shammas HJ, Savini G (2010) Comparison of 2 laser instruments for measuring axial length. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:644–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cruysberg LP, Doors M, Verbakel F, Berendschot TT, De Brabander J, Nuijts RM (2010) Evaluation of the Lenstar LS900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 94:106–110. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.161729

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen W, Mc Alinden C, Pesudovs K, Wang Q, Lu F, Feng Y et al (2012) Scheimpflug-Placido topographer and optical low-coherence reflectometry biometer: repeatability and agreement. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1626–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang J, Savini G, Su B, Zhu R, Feng Y, Lin S, Chen H, Wang Q (2015) Comparison of keratometry and white-to-white measurements obtained by Lenstar with those obtained by autokeratometry and corneal topography. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 38(5):363–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang J, Pesudovs K, Wen D, Chen S, Wright T, Wang X et al (2011) Comparison of anterior segment measurements with rotating Scheimpflug photography and partial coherence reflectometry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ucakhan OO, Akbel V, Biyikli Z, Kanpolat A (2013) Comparison of corneal curvature and anterior chamber depth measurements using the manual keratometer, Lenstar LS900 and the Pentacam. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol 20:201–206. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-9233.114791

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Ali Yekta A, Aghamirsalim M, Ahmadi-Pishkuhi M, Valadkhan M, Ostadimoghaddam H, Amiri AA, Khabazkhoob M (2019) Agreement between Pentacam and handheld Auto-Refractor/Keratometer for keratometry measurement. J Optom 12(4):232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2019.06.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang M, Kang SY, Kim HM (2012) Which keratometer is most reliable for correcting astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses? Korean J Ophthalmol 26(1):10–14. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2012.26.1.10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Symes RJ, Ursell PG (2011) Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:295–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2010.08.050

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, Saglik Bilimleri University Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, 34752, Istanbul, Turkey

    Meltem Guzin Altınel

  2. Department of Ophthalmology, Hisar Intercontinental Hospital, 34768, Istanbul, Turkey

    Hasim Uslu

Authors
  1. Meltem Guzin Altınel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hasim Uslu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meltem Guzin Altınel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Written informed consent was obtained from the subjects, and the study was conducted according to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Altınel, M.G., Uslu, H. Agreement of keratometric readings measured using rotating Scheimpflug imaging, auto-refractokeratometer, and biograph in eyes with keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol 41, 1659–1669 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01720-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-021-01720-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation