International Ophthalmology

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 17–20 | Cite as

Precision of 5 different keratometry devices

  • Jonas Vejvad Nørskov Laursen
  • Peter Jeppesen
  • Thomas Olsen
Original Paper


To compare the precision among currently available keratometry devices. The corneal power was measured on two separate visits with the Nidek TonoRef II Autorefractor/Keratometer, the Zeiss IOLMaster 500, the Haag-Streit Lenstar LS 900, the Oculus Pentacam, and the Oculus Keratograph 4M. The precision was evaluated as the mean absolute intersession difference (MAD) between the corneal power measurements for each patient. Only the non-operated eye was included in the study. The Keratograph was found to have the highest MAD (0.215 D), which was significantly different from the other devices except for the IOLMaster. Nidek ARK had the lowest MAD (0.097 D), but this was not significant compared to Pentacam (0.124 D), Lenstar (0.132 D), or IOLMaster (0.140 D). Only one out of 29 patients had a precision difference exceeding 0.25 D with the Nidek ARK. Among the devices studied, the Nidek ARK was found to have the highest and the Keratograph was found to have to the lowest precision for the measurement of corneal power.


Keratometry Corneal power Precision Measurement reliability 



Jonas V. Laursen received a grant from Grosserer Chr. Andersens Legat (fund), Copenhagen, Denmark. No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.


  1. 1.
    Olsen T (2007) Calculation of intraocular lens power: a review. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 85:472–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lam S, Gupta BK, Hahn JM et al (2011) Refractive outcomes after cataract surgery: Scheimpflug keratometry versus standard automated keratometry in virgin corneas. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1984–1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shammas HJ, Hoffer KJ, Shammas MC (2009) Scheimpflug photography keratometry readings for routine intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:330–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S et al (2009) A new optical low coherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 93:949–953PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rabsilber TM, Jepsen C, Auffarth GU et al (2010) Intraocular lens power calculation: clinical comparison of 2 optical biometry devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:230–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruysberg LPJ, Doors M, Verbakel F et al (2010) Evaluation of the Lenstar LS 900 non-contact biometer. Br J Ophthalmol 94:106–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang Q, Savini G, Hoffer KJ et al (2012) A comprehensive assessment of the precision and agreement of anterior corneal power measurements obtained using 8 different devices. PLoS One 7(9):e45607PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Symes RJ, Ursell PG (2011) Automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery: comparison of Scheimpflug and conventional values. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:295–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elbaz U, Barkana Y, Gerber Y et al (2007) Comparison of different techniques of anterior chamber depth and keratometric measurements. Am J Ophthalmol 143:48–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karunaratne N (2013) Comparison of the Pentacam equivalent keratometry reading and IOL Master keratometry measurement in intraocular lens power calculations. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 41(9):825–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Symes RJ, Say MJ, Ursell PG (2010) Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1107–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shirayama M, Wang L, Weikert MP et al (2009) Comparison of corneal powers obtained from 4 different devices. Am J Ophthalmol 148:528–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shammas HJ, Chan S (2010) Precision of biometry, keratometry, and refractive measurements with a partial coherence interferometry–keratometry device. J Cataract Refract Surg 36:1474–1478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shirayama M, Wang L, Koch DD et al (2010) Comparison of accuracy of intraocular lens calculations using automated keratometry, a Placido-based corneal topographer, and a combined Placido-based and dual Scheimpflug corneal topographer. Cornea 29:1136–1138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M et al (2009) Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg 35:1193–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsieh YT, Wang IJ (2012) Intraocular lens power measured by partial coherence interferometry. Optom Vis Sci 89:1697–1701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Vejvad Nørskov Laursen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Peter Jeppesen
    • 1
  • Thomas Olsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyAarhus University HospitalAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Aarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations