This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Sadeer B. Hannush, MD; Susan L. Crawford, MD; George O. Waring III, MD, FACS; Mary C. Gemmill, COMT; Michael J. Lynn, MS; Azhar Nizam, MS

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(4):539-544.

Abstract
• To determine the reproducibility of currently available instruments for measuring corneal power, two investigators measured comparable locations on 18 normal human corneas using a keratometer (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY), the Corneascope (Kera Corp, Santa Clara, Calif), and the Corneal Modeling System (Computed Anatomy Inc, New York, NY). (For the two keratoscopes, average powers around rings at comparable locations were used.) Comparisons made between instruments at the significance level of .05 indicated that the keratometer was more reproducible than the Corneal Modeling System and the Corneascope, and the Corneal Modeling System was more reproducible than the Corneascope. Of the 31 rings projected on the surface of each cornea by the Corneal Modeling System, rings 2 through 13 were read reasonably reproducibly in that 76% of the measurements on these rings differed by no more than 0.5 diopter. The Corneal Modeling System (software version 1.16) is 83% as reproducible as a keratometer reading at approximately the edge of the 3-mm central zone on normal human corneas and provides information about corneal topography in a more reproducible and visually useful manner than the other two instruments.

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Ophthalmology (Drs Hannush, Crawford, and Waring, and Ms Gemmill) and the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Messrs Lynn and Nizam), Emory University, Atlanta, Ga. Dr Hannush is now with the Cornea Service, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication January 2, 1990.

Reprint requests to Department of Ophthalmology, Emory University, 1327 Clifton Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30322 (Dr Waring).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Corneal Topography of Neonates and Infants
Isenberg et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1767-1771.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical evaluation of keratometry and computerised videokeratography: intraobserver and interobserver variability on normal and astigmatic corneas
Karabatsas et al.
Br J Ophthalmol 1998;82:637-642.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening of Myopic Photorefractive Keratectomy in Eye Bank Eyes by Computerized Videokeratography
Lim-Bon-Siong et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1998;116:617-623.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Autorefraction/Autokeratometry and Subjective Refraction in Untreated and Photorefractive Keratectomy-Treated Eyes
Oyo-Szerenyi et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1997;115:157-164.
ABSTRACT  

Hydration Effects on Corneal Topography
Ousley and Terry
Arch Ophthalmol 1996;114:181-185.
ABSTRACT  

Evaluating the Reproducibility of Topography Systems on Spherical Surfaces
Maguire et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:259-262.
ABSTRACT  

Prospective Corneal Topographic Analysis in Surgery for Postkeratoplasty Astigmatism
Frangieh et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:506-510.
ABSTRACT