Comparison of keratometry data using handheld and table-mounted instruments in healthy adults.
Journal
International ophthalmology
ISSN: 1573-2630
Titre abrégé: Int Ophthalmol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7904294
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
17
12
2020
accepted:
25
05
2021
pubmed:
11
6
2021
medline:
22
9
2021
entrez:
10
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare keratometry data between the handheld Retinomax K-plus 3 and the table-mounted IOLMaster 700. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34109478
doi: 10.1007/s10792-021-01909-8
pii: 10.1007/s10792-021-01909-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3451-3458Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.
Références
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: 26040097
Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS (2008) Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 19(1):13–17
doi: 10.1097/ICU.0b013e3282f1c5ad
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
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.02.027
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
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2012.00903.x
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
doi: 10.1038/eye.2012.163
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: 29181314
pmcid: 5686369
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
doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.10.036
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
doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2015-307779
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
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045607
Kiraly L et al (2017) Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements between four different devices. J Ophthalmol 2017:6181405
doi: 10.1155/2017/6181405
Karakosta A et al (2012) Choice of analytic approach for eye-specific outcomes: one eye or two? Am J Ophthalmol 153(3):571–579
doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.032
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A Guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
Monti KL (1995) Folded empirical distribution function curves—mountain plots. Am Stat 49(4):342–345
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
doi: 10.1016/S0886-3350(03)00662-X
Gauvin M, Wallerstein A (2018) AstigMATIC: an automatic tool for standard astigmatism vector analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 18(1):255
doi: 10.1186/s12886-018-0920-1
Cordonnier M (2006) Screening for refractive errors in children. Compr Ophthalmol Update 7(2):63–75
pubmed: 16709342
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
doi: 10.1076/stra.6.3.133.661
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
doi: 10.1076/stra.9.2.59.701
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
doi: 10.1097/00006324-200308000-00010
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
doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8559
Isenberg SJ et al (2004) Corneal topography of neonates and infants. Arch Ophthalmol 122(12):1767–1771
doi: 10.1001/archopht.122.12.1767