Comparative Assessment of Corneal Imaging Devices for Pediatric Patients: Evaluating Keratometric Measurements and Wavefront Aberrations

Published date: Nov 10 2025

Journal Title: Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research

Issue title: ‎Volume 20 - 2025

Pages: 1 - 9

DOI: 10.18502/jovr.v20.16152

Renato Souza Oliveirarenatocso@gmail.comInstituto Brasileiro de Oftalmologia – IBOL, Rio de Janeiro

João Quadrado Giljoaomqgil@gmail.comFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra

Maria João Quadradomariaromeira@gmail.comFaculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra

Mauro Camposmscampos@uol.com.brDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Paulista School of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo – UNIFESP, São Paulo

Purpose: To evaluate the intrasession repeatability and agreement in keratometric and wavefront measurements among three different instruments (Pentacam HR, Nidek OPD-Scan III [OPD], and Zeiss i-Profiler ^Plus [IPROF]) in a pediatric population with various clinical features.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 217 eyes from 114 patients aged 6 to 17 years with different clinical features. The patients were divided into five groups: one control group (C) and four other groups, each presenting with keratoconus (KC), ocular allergy (OA), high astigmatism, or Down syndrome (DS). Statistical analyses included the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for repeatability and Bland-Altman plots for agreement.

Results: The findings demonstrated excellent repeatability of keratometric parameters across all devices (e.g., K1 ICC: 99.53% for Pentacam, 98.10% for OPD, and 98.31% for IPROF). The Pentacam showed superior repeatability for aberrometry indices in the KC group, with ICC values exceeding 98% for high-order aberration root mean square (HOA RMS) and Zernike polynomials. However, in the DS group, repeatability was significantly reduced for certain parameters, such as the index of surface variance (ICC: 40.13%) and HOA RMS (ICC: 42.86%). Bland-Altman plots revealed variations among devices in asphericity, vertical coma, and HOA RMS, with the KC group exhibiting broader limits of agreement compared to the control group.

Conclusion: All three instruments showed good repeatability, with the Pentacam demonstrating superior reliability across all parameters, including aberrometry. However, agreement between devices was poor for key indices in patients with KC and DS.

Keywords: Corneal Aberration, Corneal Tomography, Down Syndrome, Keratoconus, Pediatric Keratoconus

1. Masiwa LE, Moodley V. A review of corneal imaging methods for the early diagnosis of pre-clinical Keratoconus. J Optom 2020;13:269–275.

2. McAlinden C, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. A comprehensive evaluation of the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Oculus Pentacam HR. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011;52:7731–7737.

3. Hernández-Camarena JC, Chirinos-Saldaña P, Navas A, Ramirez-Miranda A, de la Mota A, Jimenez-Corona A, et al. Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement between three different Scheimpflug systems in measuring corneal and anterior segment biometry. J Refract Surg 2014;30:616–621.

4. Asgari S, Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, Mohamadi A, Rezvan F, Fotouhi A. OPD-Scan III: A repeatability and inter-device agreement study of a multifunctional device in emmetropia, ametropia, and keratoconus. Int Ophthalmol 2016;36:697–705.

5. Lin KK, Chen YW, Yeh CT, Li PR, Lee JS, Hou CH, et al. Comparing the natural progression and clinical features of keratoconus between pediatric and adult patients. Sci Rep 2022;12:8278.

6. Mukhtar S, Ambati BK. Pediatric keratoconus: A review of the literature. Int Ophthalmol 2018;38:2257–2266.

7. Maeda N, Klyce SD, Smolek MK. Comparison of methods for detecting keratoconus using videokeratography. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:870–874.

8. Rabinowitz YS, McDonnell PJ. Computer-assisted corneal topography in keratoconus. Refract Corneal Surg 1989;5:400–408.

9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.

10. Müller R, Büttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 1994;13:2465–2476.

11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–310.

12. Motlagh MN, Moshirfar M, Murri MS, Skanchy DF, Momeni- Moghaddam H, Ronquillo YC, et al. Pentacam® corneal tomography for screening of refractive surgery candidates: A review of the literature, part I. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol 2019;8:177–203.

13. Holzer MP, Goebels S, Auffarth GU. Precision of NIDEK OPD-scan measurements. J Refract Surg 2006;22:S1021– S1023.

14. Liao X, Wang MJ, Tan QQ, Lan CJ. Repeatability of i.Profiler for measuring wavefront aberrations in healthy eyes. Int Ophthalmol 2022;42:2525–2531.

15. Azmir IS, Hilmi MR, Md-Muziman-Syah MM. Reproducibility and repeatability of aberration measurements in myopic eyes. Int J Allied Health Sci 2021;5:2266.

16. Sideroudi H, Labiris G, Giarmoulakis A, Bougatsou N, Mikropoulos D, Kozobolis V. Repeatability, reliability and reproducibility of posterior curvature and wavefront aberrations in keratoconic and cross-linked corneas. Clin Exp Optom 2013;96:547–556.

17. Shankar H, Taranath D, Santhirathelagan CT, Pesudovs K. Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam: Comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg 2008;34:103–113.

18. Flynn TH, Sharma DP, Bunce C, Wilkins MR. Differential precision of corneal Pentacam HR measurements in early and advanced keratoconus. Br J Ophthalmol 2016;100:1183–1187.

19. Hashemi H, Yekta A, Khabazkhoob M. Effect of keratoconus grades on repeatability of keratometry readings: Comparison of 5 devices. J Cataract Refract Surg 2015;41:1065–1072.

20. Kreps EO, Jimenez-Garcia M, Issarti I, Claerhout I, Koppen C, Rozema JJ. Repeatability of the Pentacam HR in various grades of keratoconus. Am J Ophthalmol 2020;219:154– 162.

21. Sena NB Jr, Criado GG, Mazzeo TJ, Oliveira TG, Fonseca JB, Novais GA, et al. Repetibilidade do estudo tomográfico da córnea com Scheimpflug rotacional em olhos normais, com ceratocone e com ceratocone operados por crosslinking. Rev Bras Oftalmol 2023;82:e0029.

22. McAlinden C, Schwiegerling J, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Corneal aberrations measured with a highresolution Scheimpflug tomographer: Repeatability and reproducibility. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020;46:581–590.

23. Shetty R, Arora V, Jayadev C, Nuijts RM, Kumar M, Puttaiah NK, et al. Repeatability and agreement of three Scheimpflug-based imaging systems for measuring anterior segment parameters in keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2014;55:5263–528.

24. Heidari Z, Mohammadpour M, Hashemi H, Jafarzadehpur E, Moghaddasi A, Yaseri M, et al. Early diagnosis of subclinical keratoconus by wavefront parameters using Scheimpflug, Placido and Hartmann-Shack based devices. Int Ophthalmol 2020;40:1659–1671.

25. Saad A, Gatinel D. Evaluation of total and corneal wavefront high order aberrations for the detection of forme fruste keratoconus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012;53:2978–2992.

26. Koh S, Maeda N, Hirohara Y, Mihashi T, Bessho K, Hori Y, et al. Serial measurements of higher-order aberrations after blinking in patients with dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:133–138.