Agreement and repeatability of pupillometry using videokeratography and infrared devices

Brian S. Boxer Wachler, Ronald R. Krueger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the pupil- measuring modules of several corneal topography devices. Setting: Department of Opthalmology, Saint Louis University Eye Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Methods: In 14 eyes of 7 healthy myopic patients, pupillometry was performed with 3 corneal topography devices and with an infrared pupillometer under luminance-matched conditions for the Placido projection of the topography devices. Pupils were also measured under a mesopic condition. Outcomes were pupil diameters, limits of agreement, and coefficient of repeatability of the topography devices. Results: Mean pupil diameter measurements with the Technomed C-Scan, Humphrey Masterview, Alcon EyeMap, and under a mesopic condition were 3.35 mm, 2.96 mm, 2.34 mm, and 5.94 mm, respectively. All pupil diameter measurements differed significantly from one another except those by the Masterview and C-Scan devices. The mean difference between the C-Scan and luminance-matched infrared measurements was 0.74 mm and between the Masterview ad luminance-matched infrared measurements, 0.27 mm. The limits of agreement ± 2 standard deviations was 4.12 mm and 1.56 mm for the C-Scan and Masterview devices, respectively. Coefficients of repeatability were 0.56 mm, 0.46 mm, and 0.44 mm for the C- Scan, Masterview, and EyeMap devices, respectively. Conclusions: Although topography pupillometry was repeatable, it underestimated the largest natural pupil diameter because of the luminance of the Placido rings. The difference in limits of agreement between the C-Scan and Masterview devices may be explained by pupil physiology and the static nature of videokeratoscopy. These results have implications when topography pupillometry is used to assess pupil diameters prior to refractive surgery. We do not recommend using pupil diameters measured by topographt to preoperatively determine halo- related safety.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)35-40
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of cataract and refractive surgery
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Corneal Topography
Pupil
Equipment and Supplies
Refractive Surgical Procedures
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

Agreement and repeatability of pupillometry using videokeratography and infrared devices. / Boxer Wachler, Brian S.; Krueger, Ronald R.

In: Journal of cataract and refractive surgery, Vol. 26, No. 1, 01.01.2000, p. 35-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2ab5793f879d41328dcbbbfc5835d582,
title = "Agreement and repeatability of pupillometry using videokeratography and infrared devices",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the pupil- measuring modules of several corneal topography devices. Setting: Department of Opthalmology, Saint Louis University Eye Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Methods: In 14 eyes of 7 healthy myopic patients, pupillometry was performed with 3 corneal topography devices and with an infrared pupillometer under luminance-matched conditions for the Placido projection of the topography devices. Pupils were also measured under a mesopic condition. Outcomes were pupil diameters, limits of agreement, and coefficient of repeatability of the topography devices. Results: Mean pupil diameter measurements with the Technomed C-Scan, Humphrey Masterview, Alcon EyeMap, and under a mesopic condition were 3.35 mm, 2.96 mm, 2.34 mm, and 5.94 mm, respectively. All pupil diameter measurements differed significantly from one another except those by the Masterview and C-Scan devices. The mean difference between the C-Scan and luminance-matched infrared measurements was 0.74 mm and between the Masterview ad luminance-matched infrared measurements, 0.27 mm. The limits of agreement ± 2 standard deviations was 4.12 mm and 1.56 mm for the C-Scan and Masterview devices, respectively. Coefficients of repeatability were 0.56 mm, 0.46 mm, and 0.44 mm for the C- Scan, Masterview, and EyeMap devices, respectively. Conclusions: Although topography pupillometry was repeatable, it underestimated the largest natural pupil diameter because of the luminance of the Placido rings. The difference in limits of agreement between the C-Scan and Masterview devices may be explained by pupil physiology and the static nature of videokeratoscopy. These results have implications when topography pupillometry is used to assess pupil diameters prior to refractive surgery. We do not recommend using pupil diameters measured by topographt to preoperatively determine halo- related safety.",
author = "{Boxer Wachler}, {Brian S.} and Krueger, {Ronald R.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00331-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "35--40",
journal = "Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery",
issn = "0886-3350",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Agreement and repeatability of pupillometry using videokeratography and infrared devices

AU - Boxer Wachler, Brian S.

AU - Krueger, Ronald R.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the pupil- measuring modules of several corneal topography devices. Setting: Department of Opthalmology, Saint Louis University Eye Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Methods: In 14 eyes of 7 healthy myopic patients, pupillometry was performed with 3 corneal topography devices and with an infrared pupillometer under luminance-matched conditions for the Placido projection of the topography devices. Pupils were also measured under a mesopic condition. Outcomes were pupil diameters, limits of agreement, and coefficient of repeatability of the topography devices. Results: Mean pupil diameter measurements with the Technomed C-Scan, Humphrey Masterview, Alcon EyeMap, and under a mesopic condition were 3.35 mm, 2.96 mm, 2.34 mm, and 5.94 mm, respectively. All pupil diameter measurements differed significantly from one another except those by the Masterview and C-Scan devices. The mean difference between the C-Scan and luminance-matched infrared measurements was 0.74 mm and between the Masterview ad luminance-matched infrared measurements, 0.27 mm. The limits of agreement ± 2 standard deviations was 4.12 mm and 1.56 mm for the C-Scan and Masterview devices, respectively. Coefficients of repeatability were 0.56 mm, 0.46 mm, and 0.44 mm for the C- Scan, Masterview, and EyeMap devices, respectively. Conclusions: Although topography pupillometry was repeatable, it underestimated the largest natural pupil diameter because of the luminance of the Placido rings. The difference in limits of agreement between the C-Scan and Masterview devices may be explained by pupil physiology and the static nature of videokeratoscopy. These results have implications when topography pupillometry is used to assess pupil diameters prior to refractive surgery. We do not recommend using pupil diameters measured by topographt to preoperatively determine halo- related safety.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the pupil- measuring modules of several corneal topography devices. Setting: Department of Opthalmology, Saint Louis University Eye Institute, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. Methods: In 14 eyes of 7 healthy myopic patients, pupillometry was performed with 3 corneal topography devices and with an infrared pupillometer under luminance-matched conditions for the Placido projection of the topography devices. Pupils were also measured under a mesopic condition. Outcomes were pupil diameters, limits of agreement, and coefficient of repeatability of the topography devices. Results: Mean pupil diameter measurements with the Technomed C-Scan, Humphrey Masterview, Alcon EyeMap, and under a mesopic condition were 3.35 mm, 2.96 mm, 2.34 mm, and 5.94 mm, respectively. All pupil diameter measurements differed significantly from one another except those by the Masterview and C-Scan devices. The mean difference between the C-Scan and luminance-matched infrared measurements was 0.74 mm and between the Masterview ad luminance-matched infrared measurements, 0.27 mm. The limits of agreement ± 2 standard deviations was 4.12 mm and 1.56 mm for the C-Scan and Masterview devices, respectively. Coefficients of repeatability were 0.56 mm, 0.46 mm, and 0.44 mm for the C- Scan, Masterview, and EyeMap devices, respectively. Conclusions: Although topography pupillometry was repeatable, it underestimated the largest natural pupil diameter because of the luminance of the Placido rings. The difference in limits of agreement between the C-Scan and Masterview devices may be explained by pupil physiology and the static nature of videokeratoscopy. These results have implications when topography pupillometry is used to assess pupil diameters prior to refractive surgery. We do not recommend using pupil diameters measured by topographt to preoperatively determine halo- related safety.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0343484265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0343484265&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00331-4

DO - 10.1016/S0886-3350(99)00331-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 10646144

AN - SCOPUS:0343484265

VL - 26

SP - 35

EP - 40

JO - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

JF - Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

SN - 0886-3350

IS - 1

ER -