Comparison of Refractive Power and Astigmatism between Digital Keratometer and Autorefractor

Jae Won Choi; Sang Youp Han; Kyung Heon Lee

doi:10.3341/jkos.2017.58.1.21

Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.58(1) > 1010704

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi, Han, and Lee: Comparison of Refractive Power and Astigmatism between Digital Keratometer and Autorefractor

Original Article

J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2017;58(1):21-26.

Published online: 30 August 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.1.21

Comparison of Refractive Power and Astigmatism between Digital Keratometer and Autorefractor

Jae Won Choi, M.D, Sang Youp Han, M.D, Kyung Heon Lee, M.D

Sungmo Eye Hospital, Busan, Korea

Address reprint requests to Sang Youp Han, MD Sungmo Eye Hospital, #409 Haeun-daero, Haeundae-gu, Busan 48064, Korea Tel: 82-51-740-3377, Fax: 82-51-743-0776 E-mail: medicalhan@daum.net

Received 1 September 20162 November 2016 Accepted 23 December 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the corneal refraction, astigmatism, and corneal marking for toric intraocular lens measured with a VERION^® Image Guided System and an autorefractor in order to precisely determine the toric intraocular lens target.

Methods

The medical records of 29 eyes of 29 patients were retrospectively reviewed to compare the corneal refraction, axis, and amount of astigmatism measured with a VERION^® Image Guided System and an autorefractor. We compared the differenc in marked axis for toric intraocular lenses as measured by a VERION Digital Marker and a manual marker.

Results

The average corneal refraction and amount of astigmatism were greater with the VERION^® Image Guided System than with the autorefractor. The average difference in axis of astigmatism was 9.62°. The difference in axis of astigmatism in patients with more than 1.0 D of astigmatism (18 eyes) was 2.82 ± 2.27°, while that in patients with less than 1.0 D of astigmatism (11 eyes) was 20.27 ± 28.14°. The average difference in marked axis for toric intraocular lens measured by the VERION^® Digital Marker and manual marker was 2.50° (0°-9.27°).

Conclusions

The corneal refraction and amount of astigmatism were significantly higher with the VERION^® Image Guided System, so careful concern and comparison of surgical outcomes between the two devices is needed in biometry. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 2017;58(1):21-26

Keywords: Astigmatism, Autorefractor, Corneal refraction, Digital marker, VERION^®

References

1. Olsen T. Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1961; 66:111–24.

2. Gormley DJ, Gersten M, Koplin RS, Lubkin V. Corneal modeling. Cornea. 1961; 66:111–24.

3. Potvin R, Fonn D, Optom D, et al. In vivo comparison of corneal topography and keratometry systems. Int Contact Lens Clin. 1961; 66:111–24.

4. Shirayama M, Wang L, Koch DD, Weikert MP. Comparison of ac-curacy of intraocular lens calculations using automated kera-tometry, a Placido-based corneal topographer, and a combined Placido-based and dual Scheimpflug corneal topographer. Cornea. 1961; 66:111–24.

5. Nemeth G, Szalai E, Hassan Z, et al. Repeatability data and agree-ment of keratometry with the VERION system compared to the IOLMaster. J Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

6. Holladay JT, Prager TC, Ruiz RS, et al. Improving the predict-ability of intraocular lens power calculations. Arch Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

7. Mamalis N. Complications of foldable intraocular lenses requiring explanation or secondary intervention--1998 survey. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

8. Shin YJ, Kim NH, Kim DH. Comparison of pentacam with orbscan. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

9. Park SJ, Wee WR, Lee JH, Kim MK. Comparison of wavescan aberrometer refraction to subjective manifest refraction and autorefractor. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

10. Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

11. Norrby S. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

12. Jo DH, Oh JY, Kim MK, et al. Corneal power estimation using Orbscan II videokeratography in eyes with previous corneal re-fractive surgeries. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

13. Maeng HS, Ryu EH, Chung TY, Chung ES. Effects of anterior chamber depth and axial length on refractive error after intraocular lens implantation. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 1961; 66:111–24.

14. Olsen T. Prediction of the effective postoperative (intraocular lens) anterior chamber depth. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

15. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. Improved prediction of in-traocular lens power using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

16. Findl O, Drexler W, Menapace R, et al. High precision biometry of pseudophakic eyes using partial coherence interferometry. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

17. Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, et al. Comparison of different tech-niques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

18. Shirayama M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Comparison of cor-neal power obtained from 4 different devices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 148:528–35.

19. Huynh SC, Mai TQ, Kifley A, et al. An evaluation of keratometry in 6-year-old children. Cornea. 1961; 66:111–24.

20. Karabatsas CH, Papaefthymiou I, Aslanides IM, Chatzoulis DZ. Comparison of keratometric and topographic cylinder and axis measurements on normal corneas with low astigmatism. Eur J Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

21. Kobashi H, Kamiya K, Igarashi A, et al. Comparison of corneal power, corneal astigmatism, and axis location in normal eyes ob-tained from an autokeratometer and a corneal topographer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

22. Shimizu K, Misawa A, Suzuki Y. Toric intraocular lenses: correct-ing astigmatism while controlling axis shift. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

23. Ma JJ, Tseng SS. Simple method for accurate alignment in toric phakic and aphakic intraocular lens implantation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1961; 66:111–24.

24. Novis C. Astigmatism and toric intraocular lenses. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1961; 66:111–24.

Figure 1.

Difference between manual marker and digital marker. ‘A’ is ‘Manual marker’ and ‘B’ is ‘VERION® digital marker microscope’. DMM = Digital Marker Microscope.

Figure 2.

Difference between steep axis measured by autore-fractor and VERION® measurement module. There is no sig-nificant difference between autorefractor and VERION® measurement module ( p > 0.05, Mann-Whitney test). ^*△ Axis means axis difference between VERION® and autorefractor.

Figure 3.

Difference between steep axis measured by autore-fractor and VERION® measurement module (percentage). These two values (≥ 1.0 D and < 1.0 D) were significantly different ( p < 0.001, Chi-square test). ^*△ Axis means axis difference between VERION® and autorefractor.

Figure 4.

All patients showed less than 10° difference. Difference between astigmatism markers measured by manual marker and VERION® digital marker. ^*△ Axis means axis difference between VERION® and autorefractor.

TOOLS

Similar articles