Validation of corneal topographic and aberrometric measurements obtained by color light-emitting diode reflection topography in healthy eyes

Repeatability and agreement of total corneal astigmatism measured in keratoconic eyes using four current devices

BACKGROUND

To evaluate repeatability and agreement in measurements of total corneal astigmatism (TCA) in keratoconic eyes, using four optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based devices: Anterion, Casia SS-1000, IOLMaster 700, and MS-39.

METHODS

Three consecutive measurements were taken with each device in 136 eyes. TCA values were converted into components J0 and J45. The Anterion and the IOLMaster 700 also provided axial length (AL) measurements. The repeatability was calculated using pooled within-subject standard deviation (Sw). The agreement among the four devices was assessed by pairwise comparisons and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

For all devices, the repeatability of TCA measurements showed Sw ≤0.23 D for TCA magnitude, ≤0.14 D for J0, and ≤0.12 D for J45. There were statistically significant differences in TCA magnitude for each pair, except for IOLMaster 700 with MS-39, and Anterion with MS-39. The repeatability (Sw) of axis measurements had a statistically significant negative correlation with the TCA magnitude (p < 0.001 for all devices). Both Anterion and IOLMaster 700 had high repeatability in AL measurements (Sw: 0.007 mm for Anterion and 0.009 mm for IOLMaster 700). The difference in AL between the two was 0.015 ± 0.033 mm (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

All four devices showed good repeatability in TCA measurements in keratoconic eyes, the agreement for TCA measurements between the tested devices was generally low. Anterion and IOLMaster 700 showed good repeatability and agreement in AL measurements.

Comparative Evaluation of Topographic Parameters Using Three Different Topographers in Keratoconic and Cross-linked Keratoconic Corneas

PURPOSE

To compare the parameters of three different topographic devices (Pentacam HR, Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH; Sirius, Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici; and Cassini, i-Optics) in grading the severity of keratoconus in cross-linked and non-cross-linked eyes.

METHODS

This was a prospective comparative interventional study done in a tertiary eye care center, wherein 114 eyes of 68 patients with keratoconus were divided into two groups: 62 eyes that were observed and 52 eyes that were cross-linked. All eyes were evaluated on all three topographers at baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The Sirius showed significantly lower values of mean flat keratometry in comparison to the Pentacam HR (limits of agreement [LoA]: 1.75 to 3.51%) and Cassini (LoA: 1.75 to 3.51%). The mean steep keratometry values were higher for the Cassini in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 4.39 to 7.02%) and Sirius (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean steep keratometry values of the Sirius were significantly lower than those of the Pentacam HR and in both the cross-linked and observation groups (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean keratometry values were significantly higher in the Cassini compared to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 8.77%) and significantly lower in the Sirius in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean difference in astigmatism was also statistically significant between the three tomographers in both groups, with the Cassini showing higher values (LoA: 3.51 to 5.26%) and the Sirius lower values than the Pentacam HR (LoA: 5.26 to 6.14%).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors conclude the three devices cannot be used interchangeably. The Cassini showed better agreement and correlation with the Pentacam HR in the staging of keratoconus, whereas the Sirius tended to underdiagnose and under-stage the disease. [J Refract Surg. 2024;40(4):e260-e269.].

Daily Variations of Corneal White-to-White Diameter Measured with Different Methods

PURPOSE

A precise determination of the corneal diameter is essential for the diagnosis of various ocular diseases, cataract and refractive surgery as well as for the selection and fitting of contact lenses. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between two automatic and one manual method for corneal diameter determination and to evaluate possible diurnal variations in corneal diameter.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Horizontal white-to-white corneal diameter of 20 volunteers was measured at three different fixed times of a day with three methods: Scheimpflug method (Pentacam HR, Oculus), placido based topography (Keratograph 5M, Oculus) and manual method using an image analysis software at a slitlamp (BQ900, Haag-Streit).

RESULTS

The two-factorial analysis of variance could not show a significant effect of the different instruments (p = 0.117), the different time points (p = 0.506) and the interaction between instrument and time point (p = 0.182). Very good repeatability (intraclass correlation coefficient ICC, quartile coefficient of dispersion QCD) was found for all three devices. However, manual slitlamp measurements showed a higher QCD than the automatic measurements with the Keratograph 5M and the Pentacam HR at all measurement times.

CONCLUSION

The manual and automated methods used in the study to determine corneal diameter showed good agreement and repeatability. No significant diurnal variations of corneal diameter were observed during the period of time studied.

Current Developments in Corneal Topography and Tomography

Introduction: Accurate assessment of the corneal shape is important in cataract and refractive surgery, both in screening of candidates as well as for analyzing postoperative outcomes. Although corneal topography and tomography are widely used, it is common that these technologies are confused. The aim of this study was to present the current developments of these technologies and particularly distinguish between corneal topography and tomography. Methods: The PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases were the main resources used to investigate the medical literature. The following keywords were used in various combinations: cornea, corneal, topography, tomography, Scheimpflug, Pentacam, optical coherence tomography. Results: Topography is the study of the shape of the corneal surface, while tomography allows a three-dimensional section of the cornea to be presented. Corneal topographers can be divided into large- and small-cone Placido-based devices, as well as devices with color-LEDs. For corneal tomography, scanning slit or Scheimpflug imaging and optical coherence tomography may be employed. In several devices, corneal topography and tomography have been successfully combined with tear-film analysis, aberrometry, optical biometry and anterior/posterior segment optical coherence tomography. Conclusion: There is a wide variety of imaging techniques to obtain corneal power maps. As different technologies are used, it is imperative that doctors involved in corneal surgery understand the science and clinical application of devices for corneal evaluation in depth.

García Á, Piñero DP. Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Purpose:

To compare the keratometric and total corneal astigmatism measures provided by three different technologies as well as to assess the level of interchangeability among them.

Methods:

A Prospective, comparative study enrolling 94 eyes from 53 patients (age, 29-77 years) was carried out. All participants were patients with the diagnosis of cataract or patients with a transparent crystalline lens but seeking surgical presbyopia correction. A complete eye examination was performed in all eyes, including corneal analysis with three different devices: IOL-Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), Cassini (i-Optics), and Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). Interchangeability of standard and total keratometric readings (equivalent keratometric readings for Pentacam) and astigmatism measures with these three systems were evaluated with the Bland-Altman analysis.

Results:

Significantly higher standard and total keratometric readings were obtained with the IOL-Master compared to the other two systems (p<0.001). Likewise, a significantly higher magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism was obtained with the Cassini system (p<0.001). Ranges of the agreement for corneal power measurements between devices varied from 0.58 D to 1.53 D, whereas they ranged from 0.46 D to 1.37 D for standard and total astigmatism measurements.

Conclusion:

Corneal power and astigmatism measures obtained with IOL-Master 700, Cassini, and Pentacam systems cannot be used interchangeably. The impact of these differences on the refractive predictability achieved with different types of intraocular lenses (IOL) should be evaluated in the future in order to define which is the best corneal evaluation approach for optimizing the IOL power calculations.