Acquisition Time for Swept-Source Optical Biometry Plus Corneal Power Measurement During Cataract Evaluation

References

• Koch DD, Ali SF, Weikert MP, Shirayama M, Jenkins R, Wang L. Contribution of posterior corneal astigmatism to total corneal astigmatism. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38(12):2080–2087. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.08.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini G, Naeser K. An analysis of the factors influencing the residual refractive astigmatism after cataract surgery with toric intraocular lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56(2):827–835. doi:10.1167/iovs.14-15903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaHood BR, Goggin M. Measurement of posterior corneal astigmatism by the IOLMaster 700. J Refract Surg. 2018;34(5):331–336. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20180214-02
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montés-Micó R, Pastor-Pascual F, Ruiz-Mesa R, Tañá-Rivero P. Ocular biometry with swept-source optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(6):802–814. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Spektor T, de Souza RG, Koch DD. Evaluation of total keratometry and its accuracy for intraocular lens power calculation in eyes after corneal refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2019;45(10):1416–1421. doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.05.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fabian E, Wehner W. Prediction accuracy of total keratometry compared to standard keratometry using different intraocular lens power formulas. J Refract Surg. 2019;35(6):362–368. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20190422-02
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C. Comparison of refractive outcomes using conventional keratometry or total keratometry for IOL power calculation in cataract surgery. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;257(12):2677–2682. doi:10.1007/s00417-019-04443-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern C, El Kaissi L, Kortuem K, et al. Comparing refractive outcomes of a standard industry toric IOL calculator using anterior corneal astigmatism and total corneal refractive power. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258(2):345–350. doi:10.1007/s00417-019-04570-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shajari M, Sonntag R, Ramsauer M, et al. Evaluation of total corneal power measurements with a new optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2020;46(5):675–681. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo TK, Heng WJ, Pek D, Wong J, Fam HB. Accuracy of intraocular lens formulas using total keratometry in eyes with previous myopic laser refractive surgery. Eye. 2020;35(6):1705–1711. doi:10.1038/s41433-020-01159-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawless M, Jiang JY, Hodge C, Sutton G, Roberts TV, Barrett G. Total keratometry in intraocular lens power calculations in eyes with previous laser refractive surgery. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;48(6):749–756. doi:10.1111/ceo.13760
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levron A, El Chehab H, Agard E, Chudzinski R, Billant J, Dot C. Impact of measured total keratometry versus anterior keratometry on the refractive outcomes of the AT TORBI 709-MP toric intraocular lens. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2021;259(5):1199–1207. doi:10.1007/s00417-020-05046-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savini G, Taroni L, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of total Keratometry and standard Keratometry by the IOLMaster 700 and comparison to total corneal astigmatism by Scheimpflug imaging. Eye. 2021;35(1):307–315. doi:10.1038/s41433-020-01245-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passi SF, Thompson AC, Gupta PK. Comparison of agreement and efficiency of a swept source-optical coherence tomography device and an optical low-coherence reflectometry device for biometry measurements during cataract evaluation. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:2245–2251. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S182898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2011;31(4):330–338. doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2011.00851.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–160. doi:10.1177/096228029900800204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozyol P, Ozyol E. Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based topography measurements of anterior segment parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;169:73–78. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2016.06.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tañá-Rivero P, Aguilar-Córcoles S, Tello-Elordi C, Pastor-Pascual F, Montés-Micó R. Agreement between 2 swept-source OCT biometers and a Scheimpflug partial coherence interferometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(4):488–495. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo IR, Rozema JJ, Dhubhghaill SN, Zakaria N, Koppen C, Tassignon MJ. Repeatability and inter-device agreement for three different methods of keratometry: Placido, Scheimpflug, and color LED corneal topography. J Refract Surg. 2015;31(3):176–181. doi:10.3928/1081597X-20150224-01
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Canedo ALC, Wang Y, Xie KC, Koch DD. Comparison of central topographic maps from a swept-source OCT biometer and a Placido disk-dual Scheimpflug tomographer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47(4):482–487. doi:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000459
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar