Comparison of corneal refractive power and astigmatism measured by the new anterior segment optical coherence tomographic device and Scheimpflug imaging device in age-related cataract patients

Abstract

Objective: To compare the difference and agreement of corneal refractive power and astigmatism measured by the new swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (SS-AS-OCT) device (CASIA2) and Scheimpflug imaging device (Pentacam) in age-related cataract patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 112 eyes of 112 patients with age-related cataract were examined before phacoemulsification in the Tianjin Medical University Eye Hospital from April to May 2020. The steep keratometry (Ks), flat keratometry (Kf), mean keratometry (Km), degree and axis of astigmatism of the corneal anterior and posterior surfaces and the total cornea were recorded. The difference in astigmatism was analyzed by the arithmetic method and the vector method. The difference of data was evaluated using Paired t test or Wilcoxon test. The agreement of data was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots. Results: The patients were 44 males and 68 females with an average age of (67±10) years. There were no statistically differences in the Ks and Km values of the corneal anterior surface between the Pentacam and the CASIA2 (both P>0.05). There was significant difference in the Kf values of the corneal anterior surface between the Pentacam and the CASIA2 [(44.24±1.73) D vs. (44.14±1.64) D; t=2.278; P<0.05]. The Ks, Kf, and Km values of the posterior surface of the cornea measured by the Pentacam and the CASIA2 were (-6.60±0.29) D vs. (-6.45±0.28) D, (-6.34±0.27) D vs. (-6.17±0.25) D, and (-6.47±0.26) D vs. (-6.31±0.25) D, respectively. The Ks, Kf, and Km values of the total cornea measured by the two instruments were (45.08±1.84) D vs. (43.94±1.64) D, (44.18±1.85) D vs. (43.02±1.64) D, and (44.63±1.82) D vs. (43.48±1.60) D, respectively. There were significant differences in the Ks, Kf, and Km values of the posterior surface of the cornea and the total cornea (t=-14.440, -13.522, -17.186, 21.016, 21.819, 22.981; all P<0.01). The degree and axis of astigmatism of the corneal anterior and posterior surfaces and the total cornea showed no statistically significant difference (all P>0.05). Vector operation results showed that the astigmatism difference vector (DV) of the Pentacam and the CASIA2 on the anterior surface of the cornea was 0.06 D@57°±0.64 D,>0.50 D in 47 eyes (41.96%). The astigmatism DV on the posterior surface of the cornea was 0.07 D@174°±0.21 D, >0.50 D in 2 eyes (1.79%). The astigmatism DV on the total cornea was 0.13 D@3°±0.69 D,>0.50 D in 59 eyes (52.68%). The results of the two devices were positively correlated (r values of the Ks, Kf, Km, and astigmatism degree on the anterior surface of the cornea were 0.970, 0.968, 0.976, and 0.697, respectively, on the posterior surface of the cornea were 0.918, 0.875, 0.925, and 0.517, respectively, and on the total cornea were 0.951, 0.955, 0.959, and 0.622, respectively; all P<0.01). Bland-Altman analysis showed that the Ks, Kf, Km, and astigmatism degree of the corneal anterior and posterior surfaces measured by the two devices were consistent, with 2.68% to 8.04% of the measured values outside 95% limits of agreement (95%LoA). The 95%LoA of the total corneal Ks, Kf, and Km between the two devices was 0.01 to 2.28 D, 0.06 to 2.27 D, and 0.10 to 2.20 D, respectively, with a wide 95%LoA range and poor consistency. Conclusions: The corneal refractive power and astigmatism measured by the CASIA2 and the Pentacam shows little difference on the anterior surface of the cornea, with good agreement. However, the refractive power results of the posterior surface of the cornea and the total cornea show great difference, suggesting that these two instruments cannot be used interchangeably in clinical practice. (Chin J Ophthalmol, 2021, 57: 48-55).