Clinical History Method versus Corneal Tomographers in Estimating Corneal Power after Photorefractive Surgery.

AIMS: To investigate the concordance between the corneal power determined by various approaches with two tomographers (MS-39® and Galilei G6®) and the clinical history method (CHM) in patients undergoing photorefractive surgery with excimer laser for myopic errors.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

Prospective cohort study. Patients undergoing keratorefractive surgery, and having pre- and postoperative keratometries, and tomographies, were included.

RESULTS

In 90 eyes, the differences in the power estimated by the CHM and the one determined by four approaches with the corneal tomographers, which included measurements of the posterior cornea, did not show statistically significant differences in their averages. However, the 95% limits of agreement were very wide. After obtaining regression formulas to adjust the values of these four variables, the results of the agreement analysis were similar.

CONCLUSION

Although certain values either directly determined or derived from measurements with the Galilei® and MS-39®corneal tomographers, approximated the estimated value of postoperative corneal power according to the CHM, due to the amplitude of their limits of agreement, these calculations must be taken with care, because they may not be accurate in a given eye.