Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment

Tiago B Ferreira, Filomena J Ribeiro Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal Purpose: To assess the comparability and repeatability of keratometric and astigmatism values measured by four techniques: Orbscan IIz® (Bausch and Lomb), Lenstar LS 900® (Haag-Strei...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ferreira TB, Ribeiro FJ
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:	astigmatism keratometry topography repeatability comparability Ophthalmology RE1-994
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/a029f8c9a4264fb0b82d20ab8fb44938
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:a029f8c9a4264fb0b82d20ab8fb44938
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:a029f8c9a4264fb0b82d20ab8fb449382021-12-02T03:14:42ZComparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment1177-5483https://doaj.org/article/a029f8c9a4264fb0b82d20ab8fb449382017-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/comparability-and-repeatability-of-different-methods-of-corneal-astigm-peer-reviewed-article-OPTHhttps://doaj.org/toc/1177-5483Tiago B Ferreira, Filomena J Ribeiro Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal Purpose: To assess the comparability and repeatability of keratometric and astigmatism values measured by four techniques: Orbscan IIz® (Bausch and Lomb), Lenstar LS 900® (Haag-Streit), Cassini® (i-Optics), and Total Cassini (anterior + posterior surface), in healthy volunteers.Patients and methods: Fifteen healthy volunteers (30 eyes) were assessed by the four techniques. In each eye, three consecutive measures were performed by the same operator. Keratometric and astigmatism values were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess comparability and repeatability. Agreement between measurement techniques was evaluated with Bland–Altman plots.Results: Comparability was high between all measurement techniques for minimum keratometry (K1), maximum keratometry (K2), astigmatism magnitude, and astigmatism axis, with ICC >0.900, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini compared to Lenstar (ICC =0.798) and Orbscan compared to Lenstar (ICC =0.810). However, there were some differences in the median values of K1 and K2 between measurement techniques, and the Bland–Altman plots showed a wide data spread for all variables, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini and Total Cassini. For J0 and J45, comparability was only high for J0 between Cassini and Orbscan. Repeatability was also high for all measurement techniques except for K2 (ICC =0.814) and J45 (ICC =0.621) measured by Cassini.Conclusion: All measurement techniques showed high comparability regarding K1, K2, and astigmatism axis. Although posterior corneal surface is known to influence these measurements, comparability was high between Cassini and Total Cassini regarding astigmatism magnitude and axis. However, the wide data spread suggests that none of these devices should be used interchangeably. Keywords: astigmatism, keratometry, topography, repeatability, comparabilityFerreira TBRibeiro FJDove Medical PressarticleastigmatismkeratometrytopographyrepeatabilitycomparabilityOphthalmologyRE1-994ENClinical Ophthalmology, Vol Volume 12, Pp 29-34 (2017)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	astigmatism keratometry topography repeatability comparability Ophthalmology RE1-994
spellingShingle	astigmatism keratometry topography repeatability comparability Ophthalmology RE1-994 Ferreira TB Ribeiro FJ Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
description	Tiago B Ferreira, Filomena J Ribeiro Department of Ophthalmology, Hospital da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal Purpose: To assess the comparability and repeatability of keratometric and astigmatism values measured by four techniques: Orbscan IIz® (Bausch and Lomb), Lenstar LS 900® (Haag-Streit), Cassini® (i-Optics), and Total Cassini (anterior + posterior surface), in healthy volunteers.Patients and methods: Fifteen healthy volunteers (30 eyes) were assessed by the four techniques. In each eye, three consecutive measures were performed by the same operator. Keratometric and astigmatism values were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess comparability and repeatability. Agreement between measurement techniques was evaluated with Bland–Altman plots.Results: Comparability was high between all measurement techniques for minimum keratometry (K1), maximum keratometry (K2), astigmatism magnitude, and astigmatism axis, with ICC >0.900, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini compared to Lenstar (ICC =0.798) and Orbscan compared to Lenstar (ICC =0.810). However, there were some differences in the median values of K1 and K2 between measurement techniques, and the Bland–Altman plots showed a wide data spread for all variables, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini and Total Cassini. For J0 and J45, comparability was only high for J0 between Cassini and Orbscan. Repeatability was also high for all measurement techniques except for K2 (ICC =0.814) and J45 (ICC =0.621) measured by Cassini.Conclusion: All measurement techniques showed high comparability regarding K1, K2, and astigmatism axis. Although posterior corneal surface is known to influence these measurements, comparability was high between Cassini and Total Cassini regarding astigmatism magnitude and axis. However, the wide data spread suggests that none of these devices should be used interchangeably. Keywords: astigmatism, keratometry, topography, repeatability, comparability
format	article
author	Ferreira TB Ribeiro FJ
author_facet	Ferreira TB Ribeiro FJ
author_sort	Ferreira TB
title	Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
title_short	Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
title_full	Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
title_fullStr	Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
title_full_unstemmed	Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
title_sort	comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment
publisher	Dove Medical Press
publishDate	2017
url	https://doaj.org/article/a029f8c9a4264fb0b82d20ab8fb44938
work_keys_str_mv	AT ferreiratb comparabilityandrepeatabilityofdifferentmethodsofcornealastigmatismassessment AT ribeirofj comparabilityandrepeatabilityofdifferentmethodsofcornealastigmatismassessment
_version_	1718401874229460992

Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment

Ejemplares similares