IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Equivalent Keratometry Readings Obtained by Pentacam HR (High Resolution)

Author

Listed:
  • Yanjun Hua
  • Xiaolan Zhang
  • Tor Paaske Utheim
  • Jinhai Huang
  • Chao Pan
  • Weina Tan
  • Qinmei Wang

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the repeatability of Equivalent Keratometry Readings (EKRs) obtained by the Pentacam HR (high resolution) in untreated and post-LASIK eyes, and to compare them with the keratometry (K) values obtained by other algorithms. Methods: In this prospective study, 100 untreated eyes and 71 post-LASIK eyes were included. In the untreated group, each eye received 3 consecutive scans using the Pentacam HR, and EKR values in all central corneal zone, the true net power (Knet) and the simulated K (SimK) were obtained for each scan. In the post-LASIK group, each eye received subjective refraction and 3 consecutive scans with the Pentacam HR preoperatively. During the 3-month post-surgery exam, the same examinations and the use of an IOLMaster were conducted for each eye. The EKRs in all zone, the Knet, the mean K (Km) by IOLMaster and the K values by clinical history method (KCHM) were obtained. The repeatability of the EKRs was assessed by the within-subject standard deviation (Sw), 2.77Sw, coefficient of variation (CVw) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The bonferroni corrected multiple comparisons were performed to analyze the differences among the EKRs and K values calculated by other algorithms within the 2 groups. The 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated. Results: The EKR values in all central corneal zone were repeatable in both the untreated group (Sw≦0.19 D, 2.77Sw≦0.52 D, CVw≦1%, ICC≧0.978) and the post-LASIK group (Sw≦0.22 D, 2.77Sw≦0.62 D, CVw≦1%, ICC≧0.980). In the untreated group, the EKR in 4mm zone was close to SimK (P = 1.000), and the 95% LoA was (-0.13 to 0.15 D). The difference between Knet and SimK was -1.30±0.13 D (95% LoA -1.55 to -1.55 D, P

Suggested Citation

  • Yanjun Hua & Xiaolan Zhang & Tor Paaske Utheim & Jinhai Huang & Chao Pan & Weina Tan & Qinmei Wang, 2016. "Evaluation of Equivalent Keratometry Readings Obtained by Pentacam HR (High Resolution)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150121
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150121
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150121&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150121?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.