Posters

Comparison of central corneal thickness and corneal power measurements using the new IOLMaster 700, Pentacam HR, iDesign and Cirrus HD-OCT

Poster Details

First Author: L. Kiraly GERMANY

Co Author(s):    J. Stange   K. Kunert                 

Abstract Details

Purpose:

To assess the repeatability and comparability of central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements obtained using the new IOL Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena), Pentacam HR (Oculus, Wetzlar) and Cirrus HD-OCT (Carl Zeiss Meditec) and to compare the agreement between keratometry (K) readings using IOL Master 700, Pentacam HR and iDesign (Abbott Medical Optics).

Setting:

SMILEEYES Augen+Laserzentrum Leipzig, Germany

Methods:

. Normal eyes in 55 adult subjects had corneal thickness and corneal power measured in one session three times each device. The corneal spherocylinder was converted into power vectors. Repeatability was assessed based on the intrasession within-subject standard deviation, coefficient of variation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement was evaluated by linear regression analysis and by 95% limits of agreement (LoA).

Results:

The evaluation of measuring the central corneal thickness of PENTACAM HR (554.42 ± 27,81μm), IOL MASTER 700 (542.51 ± 31,56μm) and CIRRUS HD-OCT (542.52 ± 31,43μm) shows good repeatability (CoV < 1 %) for all three devices. The difference between PENTACAM HR and both IOL MASTER 700 and Cirrus HD-OCT is significant (mean difference of 12 ± 8µm, p <0.05). PENTACAM HR, IOL MASTER 700 and IDESIGN showed poor agreement. The keratometry also indicates high repeatability (CoV < 1 %) for PENTACAM HR, IDESIGN and IOL MASTER 700. The IDESIGN measures significantly higher values than the PENTACAM HR (mean difference of 0,26dpt, p <0.05).

Conclusions:

The 4 devices showed high repeatability, but should not be used interchangeably due to low agreement.

Financial Disclosure:

NONE