Comparison of Automated Keratometer and Scheimpflug Tomography for Predicting Refractive Astigmatism in Pseudophakic Eyes

Abstract

Purpose: To analyse the correspondence between refractive astigmatism and corneal astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes with non-toric intraocular lenses. Setting: Yeouido St. Mary hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Design: Evaluation of a diagnostic test instrument. Methods: This retrospective study included 95 eyes of 95 patients. Corneal astigmatism was measured with an automated keratometer (RK-5, Canon) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam HR, Oculus). Refractive astigmatism was compared to keratometric astigmatism (based on anterior corneal measurements only), equivalent K-reading, and total corneal astigmatism (both based on anterior and posterior corneal measurements). Vector analysis was carried out by Næser’s polar value method. The accuracy was defined as the average magnitude of the vectorial difference in astigmatism (DA). Each corneal measurement was optimized in retrospect by a multiple linear regression equation between refractive and corneal astigmatism. Results: Keratometric astigmatism overestimated with-the-rule (WTR) refractive astigmatism and underestimated against-the-rule (ATR) refractive astigmatism. Several measurements based on both corneal surfaces’ values did not show any statistically significant difference with respect to refractive astigmatism. The mean corneal astigmatism by total corneal refractive power (TCRP) at 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) produced the lowest mean arithmetic DA and the highest percentage of eyes with a DA ≤ 0.50 dioptre. After optimization, the accuracies of automated KA and TCRP 4.0 mm (zone/pupil) were similar. Conclusions: Total corneal astigmatism measured by Scheimpflug tomography at a 4.0 mm zone centered on the pupil accurately reflects the refractive astigmatism in pseudophakic eyes. However, the accuracy of total corneal astigmatism is not different from automated KA after optimization.