Journal of cataract and refractive surgery · 2025
Impact of quality indicators on variability of keratometry measurements using a SS-OCT-based optical biometer.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cannon Nathan T, Cooke David L, Wendelstein Jascha A, Lehman Erik, Pantanelli Seth M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To characterize the variability of keratometry measurements on the IOLMaster 700 and relate it to device image quality indicators (QIs).
SETTING: 2 academic centers and 1 private practice.
DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective consecutive case series.
METHODS: Measurements from 3 sites, obtained between December 2015 and July 2023, were included. Surgery-naïve phakic eyes with same-day sequential measurements on the same eye were identified. Repeat measurement pairs were grouped by IOLMaster QIs (success vs warning), and changes in mean standard keratometry (∆Kmean) and total keratometry (∆TKmean) as well as standard astigmatism (∆Kastig) and total astigmatism (∆TKastig) vectors were calculated.
RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 3222 eyes of 1890 patients. Measurement "success" was associated with a smaller ΔKmean (0.09 ± 0.14 diopters [D]) and ΔTKmean (0.11 ± 0.16 D) when compared with pairs in which both measurements had a "warning" (0.25 ± 0.32 D and 0.14 ± 0.17 D, respectively; P < .0001). A similarly smaller ∆Kastig (0.26 ± 0.28 D) and ∆TKastig (0.28 ± 0.30 D) were observed with measurement "success" vs "warning" (0.77 ± 0.79 D and 0.42 ± 0.41 D, respectively; P < .0001). Even when both measurements were successful, the proportion of measurement pairs that had a ∆Kastig >0.50 D increased from 14% to 24% to 32% when Kmean SD was ≥0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 D, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: When measurement quality is poor, TK varies less than standard K measurements. Clinicians may use the SD of Kmean/TKmean to estimate the repeatability of measurements and balance this against their tolerance for performing repeat measurements.
SETTING: 2 academic centers and 1 private practice.
DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective consecutive case series.
METHODS: Measurements from 3 sites, obtained between December 2015 and July 2023, were included. Surgery-naïve phakic eyes with same-day sequential measurements on the same eye were identified. Repeat measurement pairs were grouped by IOLMaster QIs (success vs warning), and changes in mean standard keratometry (∆Kmean) and total keratometry (∆TKmean) as well as standard astigmatism (∆Kastig) and total astigmatism (∆TKastig) vectors were calculated.
RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 3222 eyes of 1890 patients. Measurement "success" was associated with a smaller ΔKmean (0.09 ± 0.14 diopters [D]) and ΔTKmean (0.11 ± 0.16 D) when compared with pairs in which both measurements had a "warning" (0.25 ± 0.32 D and 0.14 ± 0.17 D, respectively; P < .0001). A similarly smaller ∆Kastig (0.26 ± 0.28 D) and ∆TKastig (0.28 ± 0.30 D) were observed with measurement "success" vs "warning" (0.77 ± 0.79 D and 0.42 ± 0.41 D, respectively; P < .0001). Even when both measurements were successful, the proportion of measurement pairs that had a ∆Kastig >0.50 D increased from 14% to 24% to 32% when Kmean SD was ≥0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 D, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: When measurement quality is poor, TK varies less than standard K measurements. Clinicians may use the SD of Kmean/TKmean to estimate the repeatability of measurements and balance this against their tolerance for performing repeat measurements.