Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Ophthalmology 5/2016

01-10-2016 | Original Paper

OPD-Scan III: a repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus

Authors: Soheila Asgari, Hassan Hashemi, Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur, Alireza Mohamadi, Farhad Rezvan, Akbar Fotouhi

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the measurements of a multifunctional device, the NIDEK OPD-Scan III in terms of repeatability and agreement with retinoscopy and Pentacam in cases with emmetropia, ametropia, and KCN (grade 1–3). We enrolled 170 eyes (40 in each group of emmetropia and ametropia, and 90 in the 3 KCN subgroups). Acquisitions were done twice by a single technician to check the intra class correlation, repeatability index, and precision. To assess agreement, we compared OPD-Scan III with retinoscopy and Pentacam results by two blinded technicians. All device functions had acceptable precision in groups with emmetropia, ametropia, and KCN1, except spherical error in ammetropics (0.97 D). In KCN2, repeatability was acceptable with the refractive function, topography, and ocular aberrations but was more than 1.0 D for corneal aberrations. In KCN3, repeatability was low for the refractive function and corneal spherical aberration. Refractive data were not convertible to those obtained by retinoscopy in any group. OPD-Scan III keratometry data were interchangeable with Pentacam counterparts in emmetropes, ammetropes, and KCN1. In KCN2, the OPD-Scan III—Pentacam agreement for Kmax was 0.71 D, and there was 1.25 D difference in Kmin. No OPD-Scan III—Pentacam agreement was observed in KCN3. OPD- Scan III is a multifunctional device with acceptable repeatability in emmetropic, ammetropic, and KCN cases. Its measurements of corneal curvature and ocular aberrations are better than other functions. In cases with high degrees of refractive error and corneal irregularities, device repeatability and agreement with Pentacam is decreased.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S, Shahnazi A, Hashemi H (2014) Keratometry with five different techniques: a study of device repeatability and inter-device agreement. Int Ophthalmol 34:869–875CrossRefPubMed Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S, Shahnazi A, Hashemi H (2014) Keratometry with five different techniques: a study of device repeatability and inter-device agreement. Int Ophthalmol 34:869–875CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, Loo VP, Subrayan V (2011) Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond) 25:717–724CrossRef Jasvinder S, Khang TF, Sarinder KK, Loo VP, Subrayan V (2011) Agreement analysis of LENSTAR with other techniques of biometry. Eye (Lond) 25:717–724CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Milla M, Pinero DP, Amparo F, Alio JL (2011) Pachymetric measurements with a new Scheimpflug photography-based system: intraobserver repeatability and agreement with optical coherence tomography pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:310–316CrossRefPubMed Milla M, Pinero DP, Amparo F, Alio JL (2011) Pachymetric measurements with a new Scheimpflug photography-based system: intraobserver repeatability and agreement with optical coherence tomography pachymetry. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:310–316CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ (2009) Agreement between Pentacam and videokeratography in corneal power assessment. J Refract Surg 25:534–538PubMed Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ (2009) Agreement between Pentacam and videokeratography in corneal power assessment. J Refract Surg 25:534–538PubMed
5.
go back to reference Hashemi H, Asgari S, Miraftab M, Emamian MH, Shariati M, Fotouhi A (2014) Agreement study of keratometric values measured by Biograph/LENSTAR, auto-kerato-refractometer and Pentacam: decision for IOL calculation. Clin Exp Optom 97:450–455CrossRefPubMed Hashemi H, Asgari S, Miraftab M, Emamian MH, Shariati M, Fotouhi A (2014) Agreement study of keratometric values measured by Biograph/LENSTAR, auto-kerato-refractometer and Pentacam: decision for IOL calculation. Clin Exp Optom 97:450–455CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G (2013) Revisiting keratoconus diagnosis and progression classification based on evaluation of corneal asymmetry indices, derived from Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and suspect cases. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1539–1548CrossRefPubMed Kanellopoulos AJ, Asimellis G (2013) Revisiting keratoconus diagnosis and progression classification based on evaluation of corneal asymmetry indices, derived from Scheimpflug imaging in keratoconic and suspect cases. Clin Ophthalmol 7:1539–1548CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2011) Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:330–338CrossRefPubMed McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K (2011) Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 31:330–338CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Portney LGWM (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River Portney LGWM (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Pearson/Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River
12.
go back to reference McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F (2014) Evaluation of the auto-refraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan III. Clin Exp Optom 97:160–163CrossRefPubMed McGinnigle S, Naroo SA, Eperjesi F (2014) Evaluation of the auto-refraction function of the Nidek OPD-Scan III. Clin Exp Optom 97:160–163CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gifford P, Swarbrick HA (2012) Repeatability of internal aberrometry with a new simultaneous capture aberrometer/corneal topographer. Optom Vis Sci 89:929–938CrossRefPubMed Gifford P, Swarbrick HA (2012) Repeatability of internal aberrometry with a new simultaneous capture aberrometer/corneal topographer. Optom Vis Sci 89:929–938CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Holzer MP, Goebels S, Auffarth GU (2006) Precision of NIDEK OPD-scan measurements. J Refract Surg 22:S1021–S1023PubMed Holzer MP, Goebels S, Auffarth GU (2006) Precision of NIDEK OPD-scan measurements. J Refract Surg 22:S1021–S1023PubMed
15.
go back to reference Chan JS, Mandell RB, Burger DS, Fusaro RE (1995) Accuracy of videokeratography for instantaneous radius in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 72:793–799CrossRefPubMed Chan JS, Mandell RB, Burger DS, Fusaro RE (1995) Accuracy of videokeratography for instantaneous radius in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 72:793–799CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Swart TC (2010) pentacam. In: Agarwal A, Agarwal A, Jacob S (eds) Dr Agarwal’s textbook on corneal topography: including Pentacam and anterior segment OCT, 2nd edn. Jaypee Highlights Medical Publishers Inc., New Delhi, pp 117–136 Swart TC (2010) pentacam. In: Agarwal A, Agarwal A, Jacob S (eds) Dr Agarwal’s textbook on corneal topography: including Pentacam and anterior segment OCT, 2nd edn. Jaypee Highlights Medical Publishers Inc., New Delhi, pp 117–136
17.
go back to reference Khurana AK (2008) Theory and practice of optics and refraction. Elsevier India, Chennai Khurana AK (2008) Theory and practice of optics and refraction. Elsevier India, Chennai
18.
go back to reference Sideroudi H, Labiris G, Giarmoulakis A, Bougatsou N, Mikropoulos D, Kozobolis V (2013) Repeatability, reliability and reproducibility of posterior curvature and wavefront aberrations in keratoconic and cross-linked corneas. Clin Exp Optom 96:547–556CrossRefPubMed Sideroudi H, Labiris G, Giarmoulakis A, Bougatsou N, Mikropoulos D, Kozobolis V (2013) Repeatability, reliability and reproducibility of posterior curvature and wavefront aberrations in keratoconic and cross-linked corneas. Clin Exp Optom 96:547–556CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M (2015) Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: comparison of 5 devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1065–1072CrossRefPubMed Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M (2015) Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: comparison of 5 devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 41:1065–1072CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
OPD-Scan III: a repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus
Authors
Soheila Asgari
Hassan Hashemi
Ebrahim Jafarzadehpur
Alireza Mohamadi
Farhad Rezvan
Akbar Fotouhi
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0189-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

International Ophthalmology 5/2016 Go to the issue