Corneal Astigmatism Measurements Comparison among Ray-Tracing Aberrometry, Partial Coherence Interferometry, and Scheimpflug Imaging System

Repeatability and Agreement of 4 Biometers Measuring Corneal Astigmatism in Eyes With Irregular Corneal Astigmatism Component

PURPOSE

To investigate the repeatability and agreement of corneal astigmatism measurements in eyes with irregular corneal astigmatism component (ICAC) using four devices: IOLMaster 700 biometer, Lenstar 900 biometer, iTrace, and Pentacam.

DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional reliability analysis.

METHODS

Sixty-four eyes (52 patients) with ICAC were examined three times using the four devices. The eye with ICAC in this study is defined as the cornea has a certain degree of irregular astigmatism (asymmetric and/or skewed bowtie pattern of corneal topography according to corneal topography classification), accompanied with total corneal higher-order aberrations in the 4 mm zone of 0.3 µm or greater. Corneal astigmatism was evaluated using three categories: anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA), posterior corneal astigmatism, and total corneal astigmatism (TCA). The repeatability was determined using the ∆Ast (arithmetic mean of vector differences among three repeated corneal astigmatism measurements). Bland-Altman plots and astigmatism vector analyses were employed to assess agreement.

RESULTS

The IOLMaster 700 (∆Ast = 0.27 ± 0.20 D) showcased higher repeatability in ACA measurements compared to iTrace (∆Ast = 0.37 ± 0.38 D, P = .040) and Pentacam (∆Ast = 0.50 ± 0.22 D, P < .001), and paralleled the performance of Lenstar 900 (∆Ast = 0.31 ± 0.26 D, P = .338). The Pentacam (∆Ast = 0.09 ± 0.07 D, P < .001) demonstrated superior repeatability in posterior corneal astigmatism, whereas the IOLMaster 700 (∆Ast = 0.33 ± 0.23 D, P < .001) excelled in TCA. The IOLMaster 700 exhibited good agreement with either Lenstar 900 or iTrace, characterized by narrow 95% limits of agreement and clinically acceptable vector differences. Conversely, vector differences between Pentacam and the other three devices in ACA and TCA measurements were clinically significant, exceeding 0.50 D (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of repeatability of corneal astigmatism measurements in eyes with ICAC, the IOLMaster 700 and Lenstar 900 outperformed iTrace and Pentacam. While the IOLMaster 700 can be used interchangeably with either Lenstar 900 or iTrace, the Pentacam is not interchangeable with the other three devices.

Comparison of Total Corneal Astigmatism between IOLMaster and Pentacam

Purpose. To compare the total corneal astigmatism (TCA) measured by IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam and to investigate the consistency of corneal keratometry (CK) measured by IOLMaster and Pentacam. Methods. Cataract patients were retrospectively enrolled in March and April, 2021. Retrospective analysis was performed on those patients with binocular and monocular CK measured by IOLMaster and Pentacam. Results. A total of 102 patients (204 eyes) were included, 64 of whom were female (62.75%). The flat (K1) and steep (K2) CK of anterior corneal surface (ACS) and flat (TK1) and steep (TK2) of total cornea measured with IOLMaster 700 were $44.16\pm 1.60\text{D}$ , $45.09\pm 1.68\text{D}$ , $44.12\pm 1.62\text{D}$ , and $45.14\pm 1.69\text{D}$ , respectively. Those measured with Pentacam were $44.31\pm 1.57\text{D}$ , $45.22\pm 1.65\text{D}$ , $44.15\pm 1.67\text{D}$ , and $45.19\pm 1.82\text{D}$ , respectively. The astigmatism of ACS and TCA were $-0.94\pm 0.63\text{D}$ and $-1.02\pm 0.69\text{D}$ ( $p<0.01$ ) in the IOLMaster group and $-0.90\pm 0.59\text{D}$ and $-1.05\pm 0.81\text{D}$ in the Pentacam group, respectively ( $p<0.01$ ). TCA measurement results of IOLMaster and Pentacam were consistent ( $\text{Pearson}=0.710$ , $p<0.01$ ), and there was no significant difference ( $p=0.591$ ). Conclusions. Total corneal astigmatism measured by IOLMaster was consistent with that measured by Pentacam. The difference between the astigmatism of anterior corneal surface and total cornea was detected in the measurement of IOLMaster and Pentacam, respectively.

Comparison of Anterior Corneal Aberrometry, Keratometry and Pupil Size with Scheimpflug Tomography and Ray Tracing Aberrometer

This study aimed to assess the anterior corneal wavefront aberrations, keratometry, astigmatism vectors and pupil size between Pentacam HR® (Oculus Optikgeraete GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) and iTrace® (Tracey Technologies Corp., Houston, TX, USA). In this observational study, 100 eyes (50 healthy volunteers) were scanned in mesopic light condition with a Pentacam HR® and iTrace®. Anterior corneal aberrations (spherical aberration (Z40), vertical coma (Z3 − 1), horizontal coma (Z3 + 1)), keratometry in the flattest (K1) and steepest meridian (K2), mean astigmatism, astigmatic vectors (J0 and J45), and pupil size were measured. We found a significant difference in Z40 (Pentacam®: +0.30 ± 0.11 µm and iTrace®: −0.03 µm ± 0.05 µm; p < 0.01) with no correlation between the devices (r = −0.12, p = 0.22). The devices were in complete agreement for Z3 − 1 (p = 0.78) and Z3 + 1 (p = 0.39), with significant correlation between the machines (r = −0.38, p < 0.01 and r = −0.6, p < 0.01). There was no difference in K1, K2 and mean astigmatism. J0 was negative with both devices (against-the-rule astigmatism), but there was no correlation. J45 was negative with the Pentacam HR® (more myopic oblique astigmatism) but significantly correlated between the devices. Pupil size was smaller with Pentacam HR® (p < 0.01). In summary, these devices cannot be used interchangeably. Corneal Z40 was significantly different with more negative Z40 with iTrace® compared to Pentacam HR®. iTrace® operates with lower illumination, giving larger pupil size than Pentacam HR®, which uses intense blue light during measurement. No correlation was found for J0. Pentacam HR® had a trend to record more negative J45 (myopic oblique astigmatism).

Analysis of keratometric measurements in accordance with axial length in an aged population

To investigate keratometric measurements according to axial length in an aged population. Patients requiring cataract surgery with keratometric measurements from four different ophthalmic devices (autorefractor/keratometer, Scheimpflug imaging, corneal topography/ray-tracing aberrometry, and partial coherence interferometry) between January 2016 and March 2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Cases for which four ophthalmic devices were deployed in the same order a day were included in this investigation. The corneal curvature of the flattest and steepest meridian, mean corneal curvature, corneal astigmatism, steepest axis location, and axial length were evaluated. In total, 250 eyes (137 patients) were included in the analysis. A negative correlation was found between mean corneal curvature and axial length, with correlation coefficients of 0.587, 0.592, 0.588, 0.591, 0.588, and 0.562 for autorefractor/keratometer, Scheimpflug imaging, corneal topography/ray-tracing aberrometry, partial coherence interferometry, total corneal refractive power of Scheimpflug imaging, and simulated keratometry of corneal topography/ray-tracing aberrometry measurements, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found for corneal astigmatism according to axial length. In axial length group of less than 26.0 mm, negative correlation was found between axial length and mean frontal corneal curvature while no correlation was found between axial length and corneal astigmatism. All four ophthalmic devices showed good inter-device reliability for mean corneal curvature but not corneal astigmatism.

Central and mid-peripheral corneal astigmatism in an elderly population: a retrospective analysis of Scheimpflug topography results

Implantation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) has become standard in the correction of corneal astigmatism. The IOL selection is based on keratometric measurements of the central cornea. However, mid-peripheral corneal changes may yield suboptimal correction in patients with larger pupils. This study retrospectively analyzed corneal topography data collected using a Scheimpflug device during routine clinical examinations. Of 11,953 patients, 641 met the inclusion criteria. Total corneal astigmatism was compared between five concentric zones (2–6 mm) using vector analysis. The absolute difference between astigmatism at 2 mm and 6 mm was 0.30 D (− 0.36 to 0.64), which decreased to 0.10 D (0 to 0.20) between the 5- and 6-mm zone. With-the-rule astigmatism was the most prevalent (53%), 34% had against-the-rule (ATR), and 13% had oblique. The decrease of the cylinder power with the diameter differed significantly between the three types, with ATR and oblique astigmatism being associated with the steepest change. Patients with high corneal astigmatism tend to demonstrate larger differences between the center and mid-periphery than those with low and moderate astigmatism. In conclusion, we demonstrated that central corneal astigmatism differs from that measured at the mid-periphery and that a larger difference was found in patients with ATR, oblique and high astigmatism.

Handling regular and irregular astigmatism during cataract surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are several different approaches to handling regular and irregular astigmatism during cataract surgery, but still much debate on which solutions are most effective given unique patient circumstances. In this review, we examine recent literature and studies to highlight some of the most effective ways to plan preoperatively, manage regular and irregular astigmatism during cataract surgery, as well as managing postoperative complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent developments in technology have provided increased courses of action for astigmatism management during cataract surgery. Additional options of toric IOLs with presbyopic platforms, light adjustable lenses, intraocular pinhole lenses, online technological tools and platforms, wavefront or topographic laser technology, and phototherapeutic keratectomy are all effective solutions to managing regular and irregular astigmatism. In this review, we will explore optimal approaches for unique situations.

SUMMARY

With increased technology, research, and methods, correcting regular and irregular astigmatism during cataract surgery is achievable in most patients. With in-depth preoperative planning, analysis of patient-specific factors, and a tailored approach, surgeons can obtain excellent uncorrected vision for patients.