Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

REFERENCES

• Piñero DP. Technologies for anatomical and geometric characterization of the corneal structure and anterior segment: a review. Semin Ophthalmol 2015; 30: 161–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camps VJ, Pinero llorens DP, de Fez D et al. Algorithm for correcting the keratometric estimation error in normal eyes. Optom Vis Sci 2012; 89: 221–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karunaratne N. Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 2013; 41: 825–834.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang M, Kang SY, Kim HM. Which keratometer is most reliable for correcting astigmatism with toric intraocular lenses? Korean J Ophthalmol 2012; 26: 10–14.
   Google Scholar
• Rozema JJ, Wouters K, Mathysen DGP et al. Overview of the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the biometry values provided by various ophthalmic devices. Am J Ophthalmol 2014; 158: 1111–1120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez‐abad A, Piñero DP. New perspectives on the detection and progression of keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2017; 43: 1213–1227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Z, Peng M, Jiang J et al. Reliability of Pentacam HR thickness maps of the entire cornea in normal, post‐laser in situ keratomileusis, and keratoconus eyes. Am J Ophthalmol 2016; 162: 74–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee AC, Qazi MA, Pepose JS. Biometry and intraocular lens power calculation. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2008; 19: 13–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo IR, Rozema JJ, Dhubhghaill SN et al. Repeatability and inter‐device agreement for three different methods of keratometry: Placido, Scheimpflug, and color LED corneal topography. J Refract Surg 2015; 31: 176–181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klijn S, Reus NJ, Sicam VADP. Evaluation of keratometry with a novel color‐LED corneal topographer. J Refract Surg 2015; 31: 249–256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ventura BV, Al‐mohtaseb Z, Wang L et al. Repeatability and comparability of corneal power and corneal astigmatism obtained from a point‐source color light–emitting diode topographer, a Placido‐based corneal topographer, and a low‐coherence reflectometer. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015; 41: 2242–2250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira TB, Ribeiro FJ, Kanellopoulos J et al. Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment. Clin Ophthalmol 2017; 12: 29–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G. Distribution and repeatability of corneal astigmatism measurements (magnitude and axis) evaluated with color light emitting diode reflection topography. Cornea 2015; 34: 937–944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajan MS, Keilhorn I, Bell JA. Partial coherence laser interferometry vs conventional ultrasound biometry in intraocular lens power calculations. Eye 2002; 16: 552–556.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen D, Lam AKC. Intrasession and intersession repeatability of the Pentacam system on posterior corneal assessment in the normal human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007; 33: 448–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibos LN, Horner D. Power vector analysis of the optical outcome of refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 80–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanellopoulos J, Asimellis G. Color light‐emitting diode reflection topography: validation of keratometric repeatability in a large sample of wide cylindrical‐range corneas. Clin Ophthalmol 2015; 9: 245–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira TB, Ribeiro FJ. A novel color‐LED corneal topographer to assess astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. Clin Ophthalmol 2016; 10: 1521–1529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen D, Lam AK. Reliability and repeatability of the Pentacam on corneal curvatures. Clin Exp Optom 2009; 92: 110–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falavarjani KG, Modarres M, Joshaghani M et al. Interocular differences of the Pentacam measurements in normal subjects. Clin Exp Optom 2010; 93: 26–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñero DP, Saenz gonzález C, Alió JL. Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of curvature and aberrometric measurements of the posterior corneal surface in normal eyes using Scheimpflug photography. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 113–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñero DP, Soto‐negro R, Ruiz‐fortes P et al. Interchangeability of corneal curvature and asphericity measurements provided by three different devices. Int J Ophthalmol 2019; 12: 412–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez de la fuente C, Sanchez‐cano A, Segura F et al. Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñero DP, Soto‐negro R, Ruiz‐fortes P et al. Analysis of intrasession repeatability of ocular aberrometric measurements and validation of keratometry provided by a new integrated system in mild to moderate keratoconus. Cornea 2019; 38: 1097–1104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piñero DP, Camps V, Caravaca‐arens E. Errors associated to keratoconus grading using systems based on corneal power. Int J Kerat Ect Cor Dis 2015; 4: 41–46.
   Google Scholar
• Muzyka‐woźniak M, Oleszko A. Comparison of anterior segment parameters and axial length measurements performed on a Scheimpflug device with biometry function and a reference optical biometer. Int Ophthalmol 2019; 39: 1115–1122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shajari M, Cremonese C, Petermann K et al. Comparison of axial length, corneal curvature, and anterior chamber depth measurements of 2 recently introduced devices to a known biometer. Am J Ophthalmol 2017; 178: 58–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser N, Berendschot TTJM, Verbakel F et al. Comparability and repeatability of corneal astigmatism measurements using different measurement technologies. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 1764–1770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuland MS, Reuland AJ, Nishi Y et al. Corneal radii and anterior chamber depth measurements using the IOLmaster versus the Pentacam. J Refract Surg 2007; 23: 368–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García‐garcía MR, Carreras H et al. Corneal dioptric power and astigmatism: a comparison between colour light‐emitting diode based (Cassini) and Scheimpgflug technology (Pentacam) topography. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2019; 94: 273–280.
   Google Scholar
• Kiraly L, Stange J, Kunert KS et al. Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements between four different devices. J Ophthalmol 2017; 2017: 6181405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montalbán R, Piñero DP, Javaloy J et al. Scheimpflug photography‐based clinical characterization of the correlation of the corneal shape between the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces in the normal human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 2012; 38: 1925–1933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Symes RJ, Say MJ, Ursell PG. Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 2010; 36: 1107–1114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar