View in EDS

Deciphering the performance of different surface models for corneal topography.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Deciphering the performance of different surface models for corneal topography.
Authors: Langenbucher, Achim (AUTHOR), Szentmáry, Nóra (AUTHOR), Cayless, Alan (AUTHOR), Hoffmann, Peter (AUTHOR), Wendelstein, Jascha (AUTHOR)
Source: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. Sep2025, Vol. 45 Issue 6, p1270-1281. 12p.
Subjects: Corneal topography, Ray tracing, Geometric surfaces, Polynomial approximation, Geometric modeling, Keratoconus, LASIK, Zernike polynomials
Abstract: Purpose: To study the performance of different corneal surface models to be used for ray tracing. Models based on geometric surfaces and polynomial fits were compared and the differences discussed. Methods: For this simulation study, five characteristic generic surface configurations were generated: (A) perfect biconic, (B) decentred biconic with white noise, (C) biconic with paracentral hollow simulating the situation after myopic LASIK, (D) biconic with random dot irregularities and (E) rotationally symmetric conic with mid‐peripheral bump simulating the situation of corneal ectasia. A floating best fit sphere (BFS), conic (BFC), biconic (BFBC), fringe Zernike on top of a BFS (BFSZ), fringe Zernike (BFZ) and Gaussian process surface model (BFGP) were fitted and the root‐mean‐squared fit error was analysed. Results: Surfaces A and B were well described by BFBC, BFSZ, BFZ and BFGP, but not by BFS and BFC. Surface C was not well represented by BFS, BFC and BFBC, but reasonably with BFSZ and BFZ and quite well with BFGP. Surfaces D and E were poorly represented, especially with BFS, BFC and BFBC, but also with BFSZ and BFZ and quite well with BFGP. There was no systematic difference between the two Zernike representations BFSZ and BFZ, even for surface B. Conclusions: Representing corneal point cloud data with a closed surface model plays a key role in ray tracing. Simple surface models such as BFS, BFC or BFBC are easy to handle but do not fully represent clinical situations with local irregularities after corneal refractive surgery or with ectasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 188364181
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Deciphering the performance of different surface models for corneal topography.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Langenbucher%2C+Achim%22">Langenbucher, Achim</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Szentmáry%2C+Nóra%22">Szentmáry, Nóra</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cayless%2C+Alan%22">Cayless, Alan</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hoffmann%2C+Peter%22">Hoffmann, Peter</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wendelstein%2C+Jascha%22">Wendelstein, Jascha</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Ophthalmic+%26+Physiological+Optics%22">Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics</searchLink>. Sep2025, Vol. 45 Issue 6, p1270-1281. 12p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Corneal+topography%22">Corneal topography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ray+tracing%22">Ray tracing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geometric+surfaces%22">Geometric surfaces</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Polynomial+approximation%22">Polynomial approximation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geometric+modeling%22">Geometric modeling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Keratoconus%22">Keratoconus</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22LASIK%22">LASIK</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Zernike+polynomials%22">Zernike polynomials</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: To study the performance of different corneal surface models to be used for ray tracing. Models based on geometric surfaces and polynomial fits were compared and the differences discussed. Methods: For this simulation study, five characteristic generic surface configurations were generated: (A) perfect biconic, (B) decentred biconic with white noise, (C) biconic with paracentral hollow simulating the situation after myopic LASIK, (D) biconic with random dot irregularities and (E) rotationally symmetric conic with mid‐peripheral bump simulating the situation of corneal ectasia. A floating best fit sphere (BFS), conic (BFC), biconic (BFBC), fringe Zernike on top of a BFS (BFSZ), fringe Zernike (BFZ) and Gaussian process surface model (BFGP) were fitted and the root‐mean‐squared fit error was analysed. Results: Surfaces A and B were well described by BFBC, BFSZ, BFZ and BFGP, but not by BFS and BFC. Surface C was not well represented by BFS, BFC and BFBC, but reasonably with BFSZ and BFZ and quite well with BFGP. Surfaces D and E were poorly represented, especially with BFS, BFC and BFBC, but also with BFSZ and BFZ and quite well with BFGP. There was no systematic difference between the two Zernike representations BFSZ and BFZ, even for surface B. Conclusions: Representing corneal point cloud data with a closed surface model plays a key role in ray tracing. Simple surface models such as BFS, BFC or BFBC are easy to handle but do not fully represent clinical situations with local irregularities after corneal refractive surgery or with ectasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=188364181
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/opo.13539
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 1270
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Corneal topography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ray tracing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geometric surfaces
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Polynomial approximation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geometric modeling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Keratoconus
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: LASIK
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Zernike polynomials
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Deciphering the performance of different surface models for corneal topography.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Langenbucher, Achim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Szentmáry, Nóra
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cayless, Alan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hoffmann, Peter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wendelstein, Jascha
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 02755408
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 45
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics
              Type: main
ResultId 1