Limits...
Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes.

Lopez de la Fuente C, Sanchez-Cano A, Segura F, Pinilla I - Biomed Res Int (2014)

Bottom Line: To assess the normal values and the repeatability of the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GDSA), the biometer IOL Master, and the autokerato/refractometer WAM 5500 in anterior segment examinations.The anterior segment measurements from the IOL Master and WAM 5500 were highly repeatable, comparable, and well correlated.In healthy young persons, the evaluated parameters had very good repeatability, although significant differences were found between the GDSA and IOL Master and between the GDSA and WAM 5500.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Applied Physics, University of Zaragoza, C/Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain ; Aragon Health Sciences Institute, Avenida San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To assess the normal values and the repeatability of the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GDSA), the biometer IOL Master, and the autokerato/refractometer WAM 5500 in anterior segment examinations.

Methods: Eighty-eight eyes from 88 healthy volunteers were prospectively and consecutively recruited. The repeatability was assessed, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The correlations among the repeated measurements showed nearly perfect reliability (ICC > 0.81) for all of the parameters, except corneal astigmatism Galilei (0.79) and WAM (0.68). There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between the values of the flat simulated keratometry (SimK) and the steep SimK measured by GDSA and the other methods; however, there were no statistically significant differences for the values obtained with the IOL Master and WAM 5500 (P = 0.302 and P = 0.172, resp.) or between the values of the ACD (P < 0.001) and WTW (P = 0.007) measured by the IOL Master and GDSA.

Conclusions: The anterior segment measurements from the IOL Master and WAM 5500 were highly repeatable, comparable, and well correlated. In healthy young persons, the evaluated parameters had very good repeatability, although significant differences were found between the GDSA and IOL Master and between the GDSA and WAM 5500.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Bland-Altman analysis showing the distribution of the steep SimK differences on the y-axis and the average of the instrument readings on the x-axis. IOL Master and Galilei, above (mean Δ ± SD: +0.171 ± 0.168 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.165 and +0.507); IOL Master and WAM 5500, middle (mean Δ ± SD: −0.055 ± 0.227 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.509 and +0.399); Galilei and WAM 5500, below (mean Δ ± SD: −0.226 ± 0.236 D with 95% limits of agreement between −0.698 and +0.246).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060781&req=5

fig2: Bland-Altman analysis showing the distribution of the steep SimK differences on the y-axis and the average of the instrument readings on the x-axis. IOL Master and Galilei, above (mean Δ ± SD: +0.171 ± 0.168 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.165 and +0.507); IOL Master and WAM 5500, middle (mean Δ ± SD: −0.055 ± 0.227 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.509 and +0.399); Galilei and WAM 5500, below (mean Δ ± SD: −0.226 ± 0.236 D with 95% limits of agreement between −0.698 and +0.246).

Mentions: Figures 1–5 show the Bland-Altman plots of the flat SimK, steep SimK, corneal astigmatism, ACD, and WTW reproducibility between the methods. The Galilei method provided lower values of the flat SimK and steep SimK than did the other methods (Figures 1 and 2). The WAM 5500 method provided higher values of corneal astigmatism than did the IOL Master and Galilei (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that all the values of the ACD obtained with the Galilei were higher than the values obtained by the IOL Master. In the majority of cases, using the Galilei resulted in higher measurements of the WTW than did the IOL Master (Figure 5).


Comparison of anterior segment measurements obtained by three different devices in healthy eyes.

Lopez de la Fuente C, Sanchez-Cano A, Segura F, Pinilla I - Biomed Res Int (2014)

Bland-Altman analysis showing the distribution of the steep SimK differences on the y-axis and the average of the instrument readings on the x-axis. IOL Master and Galilei, above (mean Δ ± SD: +0.171 ± 0.168 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.165 and +0.507); IOL Master and WAM 5500, middle (mean Δ ± SD: −0.055 ± 0.227 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.509 and +0.399); Galilei and WAM 5500, below (mean Δ ± SD: −0.226 ± 0.236 D with 95% limits of agreement between −0.698 and +0.246).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4060781&req=5

fig2: Bland-Altman analysis showing the distribution of the steep SimK differences on the y-axis and the average of the instrument readings on the x-axis. IOL Master and Galilei, above (mean Δ ± SD: +0.171 ± 0.168 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.165 and +0.507); IOL Master and WAM 5500, middle (mean Δ ± SD: −0.055 ± 0.227 D, with 95% limits of agreement between −0.509 and +0.399); Galilei and WAM 5500, below (mean Δ ± SD: −0.226 ± 0.236 D with 95% limits of agreement between −0.698 and +0.246).
Mentions: Figures 1–5 show the Bland-Altman plots of the flat SimK, steep SimK, corneal astigmatism, ACD, and WTW reproducibility between the methods. The Galilei method provided lower values of the flat SimK and steep SimK than did the other methods (Figures 1 and 2). The WAM 5500 method provided higher values of corneal astigmatism than did the IOL Master and Galilei (Figure 3). Figure 4 shows that all the values of the ACD obtained with the Galilei were higher than the values obtained by the IOL Master. In the majority of cases, using the Galilei resulted in higher measurements of the WTW than did the IOL Master (Figure 5).

Bottom Line: To assess the normal values and the repeatability of the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GDSA), the biometer IOL Master, and the autokerato/refractometer WAM 5500 in anterior segment examinations.The anterior segment measurements from the IOL Master and WAM 5500 were highly repeatable, comparable, and well correlated.In healthy young persons, the evaluated parameters had very good repeatability, although significant differences were found between the GDSA and IOL Master and between the GDSA and WAM 5500.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Applied Physics, University of Zaragoza, C/Pedro Cerbuna 12, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain ; Aragon Health Sciences Institute, Avenida San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.

ABSTRACT

Purpose: To assess the normal values and the repeatability of the Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer (GDSA), the biometer IOL Master, and the autokerato/refractometer WAM 5500 in anterior segment examinations.

Methods: Eighty-eight eyes from 88 healthy volunteers were prospectively and consecutively recruited. The repeatability was assessed, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The correlations among the repeated measurements showed nearly perfect reliability (ICC > 0.81) for all of the parameters, except corneal astigmatism Galilei (0.79) and WAM (0.68). There were statistically significant differences (P < 0.001) between the values of the flat simulated keratometry (SimK) and the steep SimK measured by GDSA and the other methods; however, there were no statistically significant differences for the values obtained with the IOL Master and WAM 5500 (P = 0.302 and P = 0.172, resp.) or between the values of the ACD (P < 0.001) and WTW (P = 0.007) measured by the IOL Master and GDSA.

Conclusions: The anterior segment measurements from the IOL Master and WAM 5500 were highly repeatable, comparable, and well correlated. In healthy young persons, the evaluated parameters had very good repeatability, although significant differences were found between the GDSA and IOL Master and between the GDSA and WAM 5500.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus