Comparability and repeatability of different methods of corneal astigmatism assessment

摘要

Purpose: To assess the comparability and repeatability of keratometric and astigmatism values measured by four techniques: Orbscan IIz? (Bausch and Lomb), Lenstar LS 900? (Haag-Streit), Cassini? (i-Optics), and Total Cassini (anterior + posterior surface), in healthy volunteers. Patients and methods: Fifteen healthy volunteers (30 eyes) were assessed by the four techniques. In each eye, three consecutive measures were performed by the same operator. Keratometric and astigmatism values were recorded. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess comparability and repeatability. Agreement between measurement techniques was evaluated with Bland–Altman plots. Results: Comparability was high between all measurement techniques for minimum keratometry (K1), maximum keratometry (K2), astigmatism magnitude, and astigmatism axis, with ICC >0.900, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini compared to Lenstar (ICC?=0.798) and Orbscan compared to Lenstar (ICC?=0.810). However, there were some differences in the median values of K1 and K2 between measurement techniques, and the Bland–Altman plots showed a wide data spread for all variables, except for astigmatism magnitude measured by Cassini and Total Cassini. For J0 and J45, comparability was only high for J0 between Cassini and Orbscan. Repeatability was also high for all measurement techniques except for K2 (ICC?=0.814) and J45 (ICC?=0.621) measured by Cassini. Conclusion: All measurement techniques showed high comparability regarding K1, K2, and astigmatism axis. Although posterior corneal surface is known to influence these measurements, comparability was high between Cassini and Total Cassini regarding astigmatism magnitude and axis. However, the wide data spread suggests that none of these devices should be used interchangeably.