Corneal powers measured with a rotating Scheimpflug camera

The theoretical basis for the calculation of corneal refractive power from anterior curvature is considered. It is shown that the power can be calculated with sufficient accuracy from one simple formula provided the refractive index of the 'cornea' is 1.3315. It is suggested that keratometer readings should be calibrated with this value in order to increase the accuracy in intraocular lens calculation.

To assess the repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement of the Pentacam HR single-camera and Galilei G2 dual-camera Scheimpflug devices in anterior segment analysis. Begitek Clínica Oftalmológica, San Sebastián, Spain. Prospective randomized observational study. Healthy young individuals had 3 consecutive tests by 2 examiners. Analyzed parameters were anterior and posterior cornea simulated keratometry (K), K flat, K steep, astigmatism magnitude and axis, J(0) and J(45) vectors, asphericity, total corneal higher-order wavefront aberrations (root mean square [RMS], coma, trefoil, spherical aberration), central cornea and thinnest-point thicknesses, and anterior chamber depth. Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated by calculating the within-subject standard deviation (S(w)), some derived coefficients, and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Agreement was assessed with the Bland-Altman method. The single-camera device reproducibility (S(w)) was simulated K, 0.04 diopter (D); J(0), 0.03 D; J(45), 0.04 D; total power, 0.04 D; spherical aberration, 0.02 μm; higher-order aberrations (HOAs), 0.02 μm; central corneal thickness (CCT), 3.39 μm. The dual-camera device S(w) was simulated K, 0.07 D; J(0), 0.13 D; J(45), 0.04 D; total power, 0.08 D; spherical aberration, 0.02 μm; HOAs, 0.11 μm; CCT, 1.36 μm. Agreement was good for most parameters except total corneal power (mean difference 1.58 D ± 0.22 (SD) and HOA RMS (mean difference 0.48 ± 0.19 μm) (both P<.00). Repeatability and reproducibility were good for all parameters. The single-camera device was more precise for curvature, astigmatism, and corneal wavefront error measurements and the dual-camera device for pachymetry measurements. Agreement was good with some relevant exceptions. Dr. Aramberri is consultant to Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici, Firenze, Italy. No other author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Copyright © 2012 ASCRS and ESCRS. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

To evaluate with the use of corneal topographic data the differences between total corneal power calculated using ray tracing (TCP) and the Gaussian formula (GEP) in normal eyes, eyes that previously underwent laser in situ keratomileusis/photorefractive keratectomy (LASIK/PRK), and theoretical models. TCP and GEP using mean instantaneous curvature were calculated over the central 4-mm zone in 94 normal eyes, 61 myopic-LASIK/PRK eyes, and 9 hyperopic-LASIK/PRK eyes. A corneal model was constructed to assess the incident angles at the posterior corneal surface for both refracted rays and parallel rays. Corneal models with varying parameters were also constructed to investigate the differences between mean TCP and GEP (4-mm zone), and an optical design software validation was performed. The TCP values tended to be less than GEP in normal and myopic-LASIK/PRK eyes, with the opposite relationship in some hyperopic-LASIK/PRK eyes having the highest anterior surface curvature. The difference between TCP and GEP was a function of anterior surface instantaneous radii of curvature and posterior/anterior ratio in postrefractive surgery eyes but not in normal eyes. In model corneas, posterior incident angles with parallel rays were greater than those with refracted rays, producing an overestimation of negative effective posterior corneal power; differences in magnitude between TCP and GEP increased with decreasing ratio of posterior/anterior radii of curvature, consistent with clinical results. In eyes after refractive surgery, calculating posterior corneal power using the Gaussian formula and its paraxial assumptions introduces errors in the calculation of total corneal power. This may generate errors in intraocular lens power calculation when using the Gaussian formula after refractive surgery.