Erschienen in:
25.04.2017 | Original Paper
Comparison of biometric measurements obtained by the Verion Image-Guided System versus the auto-refracto-keratometer
verfasst von:
Cecilio Velasco-Barona, Guadalupe Cervantes-Coste, Erick Mendoza-Schuster, Claudia Corredor-Ortega, Nadia L. Casillas-Chavarín, Alejandro Silva-Moreno, Manuel Garza-León, Roberto Gonzalez-Salinas
Erschienen in:
International Ophthalmology
|
Ausgabe 3/2018
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Abstract
Purpose
To compare the biometric measurements obtained from the Verion Image-Guided System to those obtained by auto-refracto-keratometer in normal eyes.
Methods
This is a prospective, observational, comparative study conducted at the Asociación para Evitar la Ceguera en México I.A.P., Mexico. Three sets of keratometry measurements were obtained using the image-guided system to assess the coefficient of variation, the within-subject standard deviation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A paired Student t test was used to assess statistical significance between the Verion and the auto-refracto-keratometer. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was obtained for all measurements, and the level of agreement was verified using Bland–Altman plots.
Results
The right eyes of 73 patients were evaluated by each platform. The Verion coefficient of variation was 0.3% for the flat and steep keratometry, with the ICC being greater than 0.9 for all parameters measured. Paired t test showed statistically significant differences between groups (P = 0.0001). A good correlation was evidenced for keratometry values between platforms (r = 0.903, P = 0.0001 for K1, and r = 0.890, P = 0.0001). Bland–Altman plots showed a wide data spread for all variables.
Conclusion
The image-guided system provided highly repeatable corneal power and keratometry measurements. However, significant differences were evidenced between the two platforms, and although values were highly correlated, they showed a wide data spread for all analysed variables; therefore, their interchangeable use for biometry assessment is not advisable.