Agreement between clinical history method, Orbscan IIz, and Pentacam in estimating corneal power after myopic excimer laser surgery.

• Main Authors: Kaevalin Lekhanont, Manachai Nonpassopon, Khemruetai Wannarosapark, Varintorn Chuckpaiwong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2015-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4390196?pdf=render

The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement between the clinical history method (CHM), Orbscan IIz, and Pentacam in estimating corneal power after myopic excimer laser surgery. Fifty five patients who had myopic LASIK/PRK were recruited into this study. One eye of each patient was randomly selected by a computer-generated process. At 6 months after surgery, postoperative corneal power was calculated from the CHM, Orbscan IIz total optical power at the 3.0 and 4.0 mm zones, and Pentacam equivalent keratometric readings (EKRs) at 3.0, 4.0, and 4.5 mm. Statistical analyses included multilevel models, Pearson's correlation test, and Bland-Altman plots. The Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm and 4.0 mm total optical power, and Pentacam 3.0-mm, 4.0-mm, and 4.5-mm EKR values had strong linear positive correlations with the CHM values (r = 0.90-0.94, P = <0.001, for all comparisons, Pearson's correlation). However, only Pentacam 3.0-mm EKR was not statistically different from CHM (P = 0.17, multilevel models). The mean 3.0- and 4.0-mm total optical powers of the Orbscan IIz were significantly flatter than the values derived from CHM, while the average EKRs of the Pentacam at 4.0 and 4.5 mm were significantly steeper. The mean Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm total optical power was the lowest keratometric reading compared to the other 5 values. Large 95% LoA was observed between each of these values, particularly EKRs, and those obtained with the CHM. The width of the 95% LoA was narrowest for Orbscan IIz 3.0-mm total optical power. In conclusion, the keratometric values extracted from these 3 methods were disparate, either because of a statistically significant difference in the mean values or moderate agreement between them. Therefore, they are not considered equivalent and cannot be used interchangeably.