Is it possible to replace automated keratometry with current devices: Comparison with lenstar and OPD II [Yeni cihazlar otomatize keratometre yerine kullanılabilir mi? Lenstar ve OPD ile karşılaştırılması]

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKöktekir B.E.
dc.contributor.authorGedik S.
dc.contributor.authorBakbak B.
dc.contributor.authorGönül S.
dc.contributor.authorDo?an O.K.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-26T18:44:43Z
dc.date.available2020-03-26T18:44:43Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentSelçuk Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To compare the keratometry results obtained with optical low-oherence reflectometer, corneal topography, and automated keratometry readings and to assess the interexaminer reproducibility of each device. Ma te ri al and Met hod: This comparative study examined 65 eyes of 65 healthy subjects. Detailed ophthalmic examination was performed in all cases following keratometry measurements with a KR 8100A (Topcon, Japan), an OPD Scan II (Nidek, Japan), and a LenStar LS900 (Haag-Streit, Switzerland). Patients with spheric values over ±3.0D or cylindric values over ±1.0D and with history of chronic ocular/systemic disease or contact lens usage were excluded from the study. The keratometry readings were compared by using ANOVA test (SPSS 16.0). A p-value lower than 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. Bland-Altmann analysis was used to demonstrate agreement between methods, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r) was calculated for the correlation. To assess the interexaminer reproducibility, intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated in 30 eyes for each device. Re sults: The mean age of the 65 patients enrolled in the study was 21.9±3.25 years. The mean keratometric values obtained with the autorefractokeratometer, OPD Scan II, and LenStar LS 900 were 43.30±1.47, 43.42±1.44, and 43.29±1.42 respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed among the three groups (p=0.840). Interexaminer intraclass correlation was found as 78.9%, 99.9%, and 99.7% for ARK, OPD, and LenStar, respectively. Dis cus si on: LenStar has provided comparable and well-correlated keratometry measurements in comparison with automated keratometer and corneal topography.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4274/tjo.43.72691en_US
dc.identifier.endpage76en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-0659en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage73en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.4274/tjo.43.72691
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12395/30039
dc.identifier.volume43en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTurkish Ophthalmology Societyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofTurk Oftalmoloiji Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.selcuk20240510_oaigen_US
dc.subjectCorneal topographyen_US
dc.subjectKeratometryen_US
dc.subjectKeratometry indexen_US
dc.subjectOptical-low coherence reflectometryen_US
dc.titleIs it possible to replace automated keratometry with current devices: Comparison with lenstar and OPD II [Yeni cihazlar otomatize keratometre yerine kullanılabilir mi? Lenstar ve OPD ile karşılaştırılması]en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu