散光检测设备临床应用进展

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200914-00365

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (26)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (9181 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS) Supporting Info

Guide

Abstract

Accurate measurement of astigmatism is of great significance for the design of corneal refractive surgery,

preoperative planning of cataract surgery, evaluation of postoperative visual quality, diagnosis of ocular

diseases and optometry. Therefore, astigmatism has attracted much attention. Clinically, there are many

kinds of devices that can be used for corneal curvature and morphology detection, each with different

principles and characteristics. There has been a great deal of development in the past few decades. This

article reviews the progress of astigmatism detection devices for clinical application in recent years.

Key words： astigmatism testing equipment clinical application

Received: 14 September 2020

PACS:

Fund:

Sichuan Science and Technology Department Projects (2019YJ0381); Project of Sichuan

Medical Association (S20016)

Corresponding Authors: Xuan Liao, Department of Ophthalmology, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong 637000, China (Email: aleexand@163.com)

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Bo Liu
	Li Yang
	Changjun Lan
	et al

Cite this article:

Bo Liu,Li Yang,Changjun Lan等. Progress in the Clinical Application of Astigmatism Detection Devices[J]. Chinese Journal of Optometry Ophthalmology and Visual science, 2021, 23(12): 956-960.

URL:

https://www.cjoovs.com/EN/10.3760/cma.j.cn115909-20200914-00365 OR https://www.cjoovs.com/EN/Y2021/V23/I12/956

[1]	Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, et al. Global and regionalestimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol, 2018, 30(1): 3-22. DOI:10.1016/j.joco.2017.08.009.
[2]	Young T. The Bakerian Lecture: On the mechanisms of the eye.1801, 91: 23-88.
[3]	Mehravaran S, Asgari S, Bigdeli S, et al. Keratometry with fivedifferent techniques: A study of device repeatability and interdevice agreement. Int Ophthalmol, 2014, 34(4): 869-875. DOI:10.1007/s10792-013-9895-3.
[4]	Dehnavi Z, Khabazkhoob M, Mirzajani A, et al. Comparison ofthe corneal power measurements with the TMS4-Topographer,pentacam HR, IOL master, and Javal keratometer. Middle EastAfr J Ophthalmol, 2015, 22(2): 233-237. DOI: 10.4103/0974-9233.151884.
[5]	Galindo-Ferreiro A, De Miguel-Gutierrez J, Gonzalez-Sagrado M,et al. Validity of autorefractor based screening method for irregular astigmatism compared to the corneal topography-across sectional study. Int J Ophthalmol, 2017, 10(9): 1412-1418.DOI: 10.18240/ijo.2017.09.14.
[6]	Hua Y, Xu Z, Qiu W, et al. Precision (repeatability andreproducibility) and agreement of corneal power measurements obtained by topcon KR-1W and iTrace. PLoS One, 2016, 11(1):e147086. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147086.
[7]	Kaur M, Shaikh F, Falera R, et al. Optimizing outcomes withtoric intraocular lenses. Indian J Ophthalmol, 2017, 65(12):1301-1313. DOI:10.4103/ijo.IJO_810_17.
[8]	Yu Q, Wu JX, Zhang HN, et al. Aberration changes of thecorneal anterior surface following discontinued use of rigid gas permeable contact lenses. Int J Ophthalmol, 2013, 6(2): 178-182. DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2013.02.14.
[9]	Ommani A, Hutchings N, Thapa D, et al. Pupil scaling for theestimation of aberrations in natural pupils. Optom Vis Sci, 2014,91(10): 1175-1182. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000369.
[10]	Lebow KA, Campbell CE. A comparison of a traditional andwavefront autorefraction. Optom Vis Sci, 2014, 91(10): 1191-1198. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000378.
[11]	Putnam NM, Vasudevan B, Juarez A, et al. Comparing habitualand i. Scription refractions. BMC Ophthalmol, 2019, 19(1): 49.DOI: 10.1186/s12886-019-1053-x.
[12]	Plácido A. Novo instrumento de esploracao da cornea. Periodicod’Oftalmologia Pratica, 1880, 5: 27-30.
[13]	Fityo S, Buhren J, Shajari M, et al. Keratometry versus totalcorneal refractive power: Analysis of measurement repeatability with 5 different devices in normal eyes with low astigmatism.J Cataract Refract Surg, 2016, 42(4): 569-576. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.046.
[14]	Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, et al. Repeatability and agreementof Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye, 2017, 40(5): 318-322.DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2017.03.007.
[15]	Wang ZY, Yang WL, Li DJ, et al. Comparison of biometry withthe Pentacam AXL, IOLMaster 700 and IOLMaster 500 in cataract patients. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi, 2019, 55(7): 515-521. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0412-4081.2019.07.007.
[16]	Lang PZ, Thulasi P, Khandelwal SS, et al. Comparing Change inAnterior Curvature After Corneal Cross-linking Using Scanningslit and Scheimpflug Technology. Am J Ophthalmol, 2018, 191:129-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.04.018.
[17]	Savini G, Naeser K, Schiano-Lomoriello D, et al. Total cornealastigmatism measurements: Agreement between 2 rotating sheimpflug cameras. Cornea, 2017, 36(4): 463-469. DOI:10.1097/ICO.0000000000001117.
[18]	Hashemi H, Heydarian S, Khabazkhoob M, et al. Keratometryin children: Comparison between auto-refractokeratometer,rotating scheimpflug imaging, and biograph. J Optom, 2019,12(2): 99-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2018.12.002.
[19]	Haigis W, Lege B, Miller N, et al. Comparison of immersionultrasound biometry and partial coherence interferometry for intraocular lens calculation according to Haigis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2000, 238(9): 765-773. DOI: 10.1007/s004170000188.
[20]	Buckhurst PJ, Wolffsohn JS, Shah S, et al. A new optical lowcoherence reflectometry device for ocular biometry in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol, 2009, 93(7): 949-953. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2008.156554.
[21]	Sabatino F, Matarazzo F, Findl O, et al. Comparative analysisof 2 swept-source optical coherence tomography biometers. JCataract Refract Surg, 2019, 45(8): 1124-1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2019.03.020.
[22]	Ortiz A, Galvis V, Tello A, et al. Comparison of three opticalbiometers: IOLMaster 500, Lenstar LS 900 and Aladdin. Int Ophthalmol, 2019, 39(8): 1809-1818. DOI: 10.1007/s10792-018-1006-z.
[23]	Ha A, Wee WR, Kim MK. Comparative efficacy of the newoptical biometer on intraocular lens power calculation (AL-Scan versus IOLMaster). Korean J Ophthalmol, 2018, 32(3): 241-248. DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2017.0063.
[24]	Hoffer KJ, Savini G. Comparison of AL-Scan and IOLMaster 500 partial coherence interferometry optical biometers. J Refract Surg, 2016, 32(10): 694-698. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20160712-03.
[25]	Huang J, Savini G, Hoffer KJ, et al. Repeatability and interobserver reproducibility of a new optical biometer based on swept-source optical coherence tomography and comparison with IOLMaster. Br J Ophthalmol, 2017, 101(4): 493-498. DOI:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2016-308352.
[26]	LaHood BR, Goggin M. Measurement of posterior corneal astigmatism by the IOLMaster 700. J Refract Surg, 2018, 34(5):331-336. DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180214-02.