ライフサイエンスコーパス: keratometry

1 -corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and average keratometry.

2 rnea, central corneal thickness, and maximum keratometry.

3 significantly influenced postoperative mean keratometry.

4 provement in CDVA and long-term stability of keratometry.

5 gMAR), MRSE -11.1 +/- 5.6 diopters (D), mean keratometry 60.7 +/- 6.1 D, topographic astigmatism 4.7

6 iso- and anisomyopes (N = 56), from measured keratometry, A-scan ultrasonography, and central and per

7 he effects of deprivation were assessed with keratometry, A-scan ultrasonography, and cycloplegic ref

8 reoperative and postoperative visual acuity, keratometry, aberrometry, and refraction were the main o

9 visual acuity (BCDVA), manifest refraction, keratometry, adverse events, spectacle use, and photogra

10 act tonometry), manifest refraction, average keratometry, age, gender, and postoperative IOP at 1 wee

11 ost attention to patient selection, accurate keratometry and biometry readings, as well as to the app

12 ention to proper patient selection, accurate keratometry and biometry, and appropriate intraocular le

13 Keratometry and corneal topography remain the most impor

14 ery 2 to 3 weeks by cycloplegic retinoscopy, keratometry and corneal videotopography, and A-scan ultr

15 The keratometry and pachymetry measurements obtained by Orbs

16 To assess the repeatability and agreement of keratometry and pachymetry measurements obtained using 3

17 Astigmatism may be measured by keratometry and refraction, while corneal topographic te

18 K was performed in order to minimally affect keratometry and retain correspondence of the anterior co

19 those reported in the literature for manual keratometry and somewhat better than has been reported f

20 However, there was poor agreement in flat keratometry and steep keratometry obtained by Orbscan II

21 Keratometry and videokeratography are the most important

22 ction of soft contact lens fit compared with keratometry and videokeratoscopy, accounting for up to 2

23 sed along the pupillary axis by retinoscopy, keratometry, and A-scan ultrasonography.

24 rs was assessed periodically by retinoscopy, keratometry, and A-scan ultrasonography.

25 ht were assessed by cycloplegic retinoscopy, keratometry, and A-scan ultrasonography.

26 simulated keratometry, cylindrical simulated keratometry, and apex keratometry (P > .05).

27 nd genetic study that included eye biometry, keratometry, and autorefraction.

28 attest, steepest, average, cylindrical, apex keratometry, and inferior-superior value decreased signi

29 est simulated keratometry, average simulated keratometry, and inferior-superior value significantly d

30 and uncorrected near visual acuities (UNVA), keratometry, and manifest refraction.

31 preoperative spherical equivalent (SE), mean keratometry, and percentage of tissue altered (PTA).

32 easures are corneal scarring, visual acuity, keratometry, and quality of life.

33 rected and distance-corrected visual acuity, keratometry, and Scheimpflug and ocular wavefront (WASCA

34 ial dimensions were assessed by retinoscopy, keratometry, and ultrasonography, respectively.

35 Corneal curvature was measured with keratometry, anterior chamber depth with ultrasound, and

36 mean values of maximum, average, and minimum keratometry as well as simulated keratometric astigmatis

37 was 36 months with clinical examination and keratometry at every visit.

38 Average keratometry (AveK) and simulated keratometry (SimK) alon

39 the Rabinowitz test (K & I-S), and simulated keratometry (average Sim K).

40 corneal thicknesses; anterior and posterior keratometry (average, steep, flat); axial curvatures; as

41 Steepest simulated keratometry, average simulated keratometry, and inferior

42 rence in mean steep keratometry or mean flat keratometry between instrument pairs.

43 ing method, with that derived from simulated keratometry (CASimK), an anterior surface-based method,

44 , and power vector terms with vertical plane keratometry, CD, and CS.

45 ted (CDVA) distance visual acuity in logMAR, keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT) and higher-

46 rvational procedure: Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), and thinne

47 (SD +/-5.0) using videokeratoscopy (central keratometry, corneal height, and shape factor) and OCT t

48 icipants underwent axial length measurement, keratometry, corneal pachymetry, and candidate gene anal

49 Mean keratometry-corrected HRT disc area measurements were la

50 creased (P < .05), unlike flattest simulated keratometry, cylindrical simulated keratometry, and apex

51 The average keratometry decreased from 64.15 diopter (D) to 45.7 D a

52 Maximum keratometry decreased on average from 77.2+/-6.2 diopter

53 mean refractive spherical equivalent (MRSE), keratometry, endothelial cell density (ECD).

54 with the axial length, the PMF severity and keratometry established in this study suggest that PM ey

55 Corneal keratometry, expressed in the form of M, J0 and J45 (pow

56 observational procedure: Steep keratometry, flat keratometry, central corneal thickness

57 Simulated keratometry, flattest, steepest, average, cylindrical, a

58 The mean reduction in maximum keratometry from baseline was equivalent with 2-minute a

59 ngle-site study investigating the use of the keratometry from the Lenstar LS 900(R) for toric IOL sur

60 However, keratometry gives no information about the peripheral co

61 re were no significant differences between 2 keratometry groups (higher or lower than 53 D) in visual

62 Before surgery, steep and flat keratometry had no significant differences between group

63 UDVA, BDVA, sphere, cylinder, and simulated keratometry improved after treatment in both groups (P <

64 Mean keratometry influenced prediction error (P = .03) with S

65 ance visual acuity (logMAR CDVA) and maximum keratometry (K(max)).

66 l length (AL), anterior chamber depth (ACD), keratometry (K) over a 2.5 mm and 3.0 mm diameter, lens

67 (UNVA), corrected near visual acuity (CNVA), keratometry (K), and manifest refraction spherical equiv

68 ge over 1 year of topography-derived maximum keratometry (K), comparing treatment with control groups

69 egic refraction, slitlamp biomicroscopy, and keratometry (K).

70 edicting refractive outcomes, including mean keratometry, keratometric astigmatism, and spherical equ

71 Mean keratometry (Km) values of IOLMaster 700 were compared f

72 ty (UCNVA), manifest refraction, KA and mean keratometry (KM), corneal aberrometry, tIOL rotation, an

73 ratoconus after 1 year, defined as a maximal keratometry (Kmax) increase <1 diopter (D).

74 ographic keratometry (SimK) and mean maximum keratometry (Kmax) reduced by -0.74 D (P < .0001) and -0

75 ppearance, topography-derived steep and flat keratometry (Kmax, Kmin), central corneal thickness (CCT

76 Both groups had flat corneas (average keratometry [Kmed] of 41.59 +/- 0.35 diopters [D] in adu

77 P = .81), steepest-K2 (P = .68), and average keratometry (mean power; P = .52).

78 r both) and the difference was a function of keratometry measurements (K-readings).

79 luded cycloplegic refraction by retinoscopy, keratometry measurements, and A-scan ultrasound measurem

80 lity and reproducibility of the biometry and keratometry measurements.

81 etween treatment groups and correlation with keratometry measurements.

82 am).The following parameters were evaluated: keratometry, minimum corneal thickness, pachymetry progr

83 poor agreement in flat keratometry and steep keratometry obtained by Orbscan II compared with those o

84 y age, diagnosis, central corneal thickness, keratometry, operator, randomization sequence.

85 was no significant difference in mean steep keratometry or mean flat keratometry between instrument

86 cylindrical simulated keratometry, and apex keratometry (P > .05).

87 Preoperative mean keratometry (P = .007), time interval from surgery to ru

88 spherical equivalent and maximum and minimum keratometry (P = .03, P = .02, P = .04, respectively).

89 ffected by any factor such as age (P = .31), keratometry (P = .32), and axial length (P = .27) of the

90 minimal pachymetry measurement of 400 mum in keratometry (Pentacam, Oculus GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany).

91 cted visual acuity (BCVA) and normal maximum keratometry reading (Kmax) were measured at study entry

92 flug imaging from which we extracted maximum keratometry reading (max-K), average of minimum and maxi

93 SH levels significantly affected the maximal keratometry reading (p = .036), the vertical keratometry

94 keratometry reading (p = .036), the vertical keratometry reading (p = .04), and the index of height a

95 ected distance visual acuity (CDVA), maximum keratometry readings (K(max)), minimum radius of curvatu

96 months through analysis of maximum simulated keratometry readings (Kmax, diopters).

97 ding (max-K), average of minimum and maximum keratometry readings (mean-K), central corneal thickness

98 A significant decrease in both keratometry readings and spherical equivalent (from -4.0

99 difference in the comparison of AL, ACD and keratometry readings between the Lenstar and IOLMaster.

100 There was a reduction of the mean keratometry readings from 51.99 +/- 5.57 D to 49.33 +/-

101 e WTW distance, measurements for AL, ACD and keratometry readings may be used interchangeability with

102 Mean CCT, ACD and LT, average keratometry readings of affected RVO eyes, unaffected fe

103 m-ring measurements provided by Pentacam HR, keratometry readings provided by IOLMaster 700, and cent

104 Spherical equivalent and keratometry readings showed a significant reduction in a

105 The mean difference in preoperative keratometry readings was 1.6 +/- 1.07 diopter (D), where

106 , and at last follow-up, both steep and flat keratometry readings were significantly flatter in the t

107 Average keratometry readings, central corneal thickness (CCT), a

108 neas of both probands were abnormally steep (keratometry readings, flat >/= 47.4 diopters [D] and ste

109 es were UCVA, BCVA, steep and flat simulated keratometry, refraction, graft clarity, and complication

110 l power were measured by ultrasonography and keratometry, respectively.

111 S), MTI Photoscreening (MTIPS), Nidek KM-500 Keratometry Screening (KERS), and Retinomax K-Plus Noncy

112 Average keratometry (AveK) and simulated keratometry (SimK) along 2.0-mm-ring measurements provid

113 D) (P < .005) and mean simulated topographic keratometry (SimK) and mean maximum keratometry (Kmax) r

114 uity (CDVA), spherical equivalent (SE), flat keratometry, steep keratometry, thinnest pachymetry, spe

115 cal equivalent (SE), flat keratometry, steep keratometry, thinnest pachymetry, specular microscopy, a

116 /- 0.1 logMAR), MRSE to -2.6 +/- 3.5 D, mean keratometry to 44.4 +/- 2.2 D, and topographic astigmati

117 ve error, visual acuity, corneal topographic keratometry, ultrasonic pachymetry, and topography-deriv

118 al acuity, contrast sensitivity, straylight, keratometry, ultrasonic pachymetry, intraocular pressure

119 ry outcome measure was the maximum simulated keratometry value (Kmax).

120 In the CXL treatment group, the maximum keratometry value decreased by 1.6 diopters (D) from bas

121 In the treatment group, the maximum keratometry value decreased by 2.0 D or more in 28 eyes

122 +/- 2.8 D at the last visit, and the minimum keratometry value decreased from 44.3 +/- 4.7 D to 41.5

123 The maximum keratometry value decreased from baseline by 49.3 +/- 4.

124 ent change in the topography-derived maximum keratometry value from baseline to 6 months with 2-minut

125 nking was effective in improving the maximum keratometry value, CDVA, and UCVA in eyes with progressi

126 ge over 1 year of topography-derived maximum keratometry value, comparing treatment with control grou

127 ion, spherical equivalent, minimum simulated keratometry value, corneal thickness at the thinnest poi

128 produced equivalent reduction in the maximum keratometry value, with a favorable safety profile.

129 The included eyes had maximal keratometry values >/= 70 diopters, as measured using th

130 In contrast, keratometry values from Placido-ring topography were fou

131 atometry values were similar while mean flat keratometry values were significantly different between

132 Mean steep keratometry values were similar while mean flat keratome

133 of astigmatism for SimK 2.0 mm and IOLMaster keratometry values, as well as ACD and CCT measurements.

134 improved the visual acuity, refraction, and keratometry values.

135 al and cylindrical refraction, and simulated keratometry values.

136 Mean baseline simulated keratometry was 46.32 D in the flattest meridian and 51.

137 Flattening of steep and flat keratometry was significant in Groups I (P = .01) and II

138 The average keratometry was taken as an average of the flat and stee

139 Axial length and keratometry were measured and repeated with -0.5 D SofLe

140 09, P = .02), whereas age, sex, and baseline keratometry were not independent contributors.

141 mp examination, indirect ophthalmoscopy, and keratometry were performed in a cross-sectional study of

142 ty and specificity associated with automated keratometry while maintaining an acuity component that c