Comparing Two Keratometer Device Keratometry after Photorefractive Keratectomy

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

3 Student of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: One of the reasons that the power of intraocular lens (IOL) after Photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) report lower than the actual amount is an error of measurement of refractive power of cornea by corneal topography system and keratometers. There are Different devices with different accuracy for postoperative keratometry. It is necessary to use a more accuare device. This study aimed to compare IoL-Master keratometer with Zhaval keratometer.Methods: This clinical trial was a prospective study on patients referred for PRK. 35 patients aged 20 to 30, were randomly chosen. Keratometery was done by Zhaval (China GM300) and the IOL Master system. Three months after PRK another keratometry was done for all of the patients with both devices by an 5 minutes interval. The differences between postoperative clinical history method with IOL Master Keratometry and Zhaval keratometry was calculated. SPSS version 16 was used for data analysis and paired t-test and student t-test were performed.Finding: 70 eyes of 35 patients included 10 males and 25 females were studied. The mean age of patients was 23.45 ± 1.55 years. The difference between postoperative keratometry using IOL Master with keratometry from CHM compared with the difference between Zhaval keratometer from CHM was statistically significant.There was a Significant direct relationship between IOL master keratometry and CHM method (0.86 but Zhaval keratometry had not a significant correlaton with CHM.Conclusion: The result of this study showed that the method obtained by IOL Master are much closer to the CHM, therfor is recommended that for postoperative PRK keratometry IOL Master device should be used.

Keywords

References

  1. Basic and Clinical Science Course, 2007-2008: Refractive surgery. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2007.
  2. Schafer S, Kurzinger G, Spraul CW, Kampmeier J. [Comparative results of kera-tometry with three different keratometers after LASIK]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2005 May;222(5):419-23.
  3. Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y, Avni I, Zadok D. Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 2007 Jan;143(1):48-53.
  4. Peter R, Hazeghi M, Job O, Wienecke L, Schipper I. Manual keratometry and videokeratography after photorefractive keratectomy. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000 Dec;26(12):1748-52.
  5. Randleman JB, Loupe DN, Song CD, Waring GO, III, Stulting RD. Intraocular lens power calculations after laser in situ keratomileusis. Cornea 2002 Nov;21(8):751-5.
  6. Schafer S, Kurzinger G, Spraul CW, Kampmeier J. [Comparative results of kera-tometry with three different keratometers after LASIK]. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd 2005 May;222(5):419-23.
  7. Feiz V, Mannis MJ, Garcia-Ferrer F, Kandavel G, Darlington JK, Kim E, et al. Intraocular lens power calculation after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia and hyperopia: a standardized approach. Cornea 2001 Nov;20(8):792-7.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 28, Issue 119 - Serial Number 119
November and December 2011
Pages 1359-1366

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 19 March 2011
  • Revise Date: 27 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 06 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics