Comparison of Keratometric Data Obtained by Automated Keratometer, Dicon CT 200, Allegro Topolyzer, and Pentacam

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0002-4018-9798
dc.authorscopusid34869701000
dc.authorscopusid6603443273
dc.authorscopusid7102013775
dc.authorscopusid55913025800
dc.authorwosidCosar, Cemile B/D-6634-2016
dc.authorwosidKeskinbora, Kadircan/AAM-6453-2020
dc.contributor.authorGönen, Tansu
dc.contributor.authorCoşar, Banu
dc.contributor.authorŞener, Bozkurt
dc.contributor.authorKeskinbora, Kadircan Hıdır
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-11T14:41:09Z
dc.date.available2022-05-11T14:41:09Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.departmentFakülteler, Tıp Fakültesi, Dahili Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Tıbbi Farmakoloji Ana Bilim Dalı
dc.description28th Congress of the European-Society-of-Cataract-and-Refractive-Surgeons -- SEP 04-08, 2010 -- Paris, FRANCE
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: To compare the keratometric values measured by the automated keratometer, two Placido-based computerized topography systems (Dicon CT 200 [Vismed Inc] and Allegro Topolyzer [WaveLight Inc]), and Scheimpflug analysis (Pentacam [Oculus Optikgerate GmbH]). METHODS: The keratometric data of 200 eyes from 200 patients evaluated for refractive surgery were reviewed retrospectively. Mean simulated keratometry (Sim K) and mean corneal astigmatism measured by the four devices were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. The analysis of agreement between two measurements was assessed using the method of Bland and Altman. RESULTS: Mean Sim K as measured by the automated keratometer, Dicon CT 200, Allegro Topolyzer, and Pentacam was 43.39 +/- 1.50 diopters (D), 43.55 +/- 1.50 D, 43.45 +/- 1.50 D, and 43.43 +/- 1.45 D, respectively. The Dicon CT 200 measured the mean Sim K to be steeper and the automated keratometer measured the mean Sim K to be flatter than the other devices. Significant differences in corneal astigmatism were noted among the four devices except Dicon CT 200 versus Allegro Topolyzer and Allegro Topolyzer versus Pentacam comparisons (P <.013). For mean Sim K, the 95% limits of agreement between the Pentacam and other three devices were significantly wider than the other comparisons. In Bland-Altman plots comparing the Pentacam to the other devices, extreme outliers were present in 11 (5.5%) eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the wide distribution range and presence of extreme outliers, Pentacam data should be used cautiously in IOL power calculation and astigmatic keratotomy procedures. [J Refract Surg. 2012;28(8):557-561.] doi:10.3928/1081597X-20120723-04
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Soc Cataract & Refract Surg
dc.identifier.doi10.3928/1081597X-20120723-04
dc.identifier.endpage+
dc.identifier.issn1081-597X
dc.identifier.issue8en_US
dc.identifier.pmid22869234
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84865589463
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.startpage557
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20120723-04
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11776/9087
dc.identifier.volume28
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000307676100005
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.institutionauthorGönen, Tansu
dc.institutionauthorKeskinbora, Kadircan Hıdır
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSlack Inc
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Refractive Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryKonferans Öğesi - Uluslararası - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subjectCorneal
dc.subjectVideokeratography
dc.subjectReproducibility
dc.subjectRepeatability
dc.subjectTopography
dc.subjectAgreement
dc.subjectAccuracy
dc.subjectSystems
dc.titleComparison of Keratometric Data Obtained by Automated Keratometer, Dicon CT 200, Allegro Topolyzer, and Pentacam
dc.typeConference Object

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu