Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluation of Keratometry With a Novel Color-LED Corneal Topographer
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluation of Keratometry With a Novel Color-LED Corneal Topographer
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluation of Keratometry With a Novel Color-LED Corneal Topographer
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluation of Keratometry With a Novel Color-LED Corneal Topographer
2015
Overview
PURPOSE:
To assess the performance of a novel keratometer based on reflections of colored light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and compare it with devices based on Placido rings, monochromatic LEDs, and Scheimpflug images.
METHODS:
Sixty-three eyes of 63 patients with virgin corneas underwent keratometry with color-LED corneal topography (Cassini; i-Optics, The Hague, The Netherlands) and with devices based on Placido ring reflections (Keratron; Optikon, Rome, Italy), monochromatic LED reflections (Lenstar; Haag-Streit, Koeniz, Switzerland), and Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte, Wetzlar, Germany). Three repeated measurements were performed with each device. Comparability and repeatability of corneal power and cylinder measurements were assessed. The Bonferroni-corrected α-threshold for statistical significance was 0.016.
RESULTS:
Corneal power measurements with the Cassini topographer were not statistically significantly different from those with the Pentacam (Corneal power measurements with the Cassini topographer were not statistically significantly different from those with the Pentacam (
P
= .64). They were statistically significantly lower than those with the Keratron and Lenstar (
P
< .01), but the differences were of negligible clinical relevance. Cylinder measurements with the Cassini topographer were not statistically significantly different from those with any other device (
P
= .46). Repeatability of Cassini corneal power measurements was not statistically significantly different from that of the Keratron (
P
= .02), but was statistically significantly lower than that of the Lenstar and Pentacam (
P
< .001). Repeatability of Cassini cylinder measurements was statistically significantly higher than that of the Pentacam and Keratron (
P
< .001), but was not statistically significantly different from that of the Lenstar (
P
> .05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Corneal power and cylinder measurements with color-LED corneal topography yielded values that were comparable to those of other commonly used devices. Repeatability of corneal power measurements was lower compared to some devices, but repeatability of cylinder measurements was relatively high. This may be of particular interest when using toric intraocular lenses.
[[
J Refract Surg.
2015;31(4):249–256.]
Publisher
SLACK INCORPORATED
Subject
/ Aged
/ Color
/ Cornea
/ Cornea - anatomy & histology
/ Corneal Topography - instrumentation
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Light
/ Male
/ Surgery
