Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
Anastasios John Kanellopoulos1,2 1Department of Ophthalmology, The LaserVision Clinical and Research Eye Institute, Athens, Attiki, Greece; 2Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Medical School, New York City, NY, USACorrespondence: Anastasios John KanellopoulosThe LaserVision Clinical an...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/9463ef3942494fecae836fcebd38fa30 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Anastasios John Kanellopoulos1,2 1Department of Ophthalmology, The LaserVision Clinical and Research Eye Institute, Athens, Attiki, Greece; 2Department of Ophthalmology, New York University Medical School, New York City, NY, USACorrespondence: Anastasios John KanellopoulosThe LaserVision Clinical and Research Eye Institute, Athens, GreeceTel + 30 210 7472777Fax + 30 210 7472789Email ajkmd@mac.comPurpose: To evaluate and compare the repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug vs scanning-slit tomography of the cornea and the anterior chamber in terms of keratometric and tomographic indices in healthy eyes.Methods: The 20 eyes of 10 healthy participants underwent 3 consecutive measurements using both Scheimpflug-tomography and scanning-slit tomography, diagnostic devices. Multiple corneal and anterior chamber tomographic parameters were recorded and evaluated to include corneal keratometry and its axis; corneal best-fit sphere (BFS), pachymetry mapping, angle kappa, anterior chamber depth (ACD), pupil diameter, and location. Repeatability for each device was assessed using the within each subject standard deviation of sequential exams, the coefficient variation (CV) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Agreement between the two devices was assessed using Bland–Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) and correlation coefficient (r).Results: Both devices were found to have high repeatability (ICC> 0.9) both in keratometric and other tomographic measurements. Scheimpflug tomography’s repeatability though appeared superior in the average keratometry values, anterior and posterior BFS, thinnest corneal pachymetry value and location (p< 0.05). Agreement: Statistically significant inter-device differences were noted in the mean values of K1, K2, BFS, ACD and thinnest corneal pachymetry (p< 0.05). Despite the agreement differences noted, the two devices were well correlated (r> 0.8) in respective measurements with Scheimpflug delivering consistently lower values than the scanning-slit tomography device.Conclusion: Scheimpflug-tomography repeatability was found to be superior to that of scanning-slit tomography in this specific study, in most parameters evaluated. Inter-device agreement evaluation suggests that reading from the two devices may not be used interchangeably in absolute values, yet they are well correlated with Scheimpflug delivering consistently lower values in most.Keywords: Pentacam, Orbscan, Scheimpflug corneal tomography, scanning-slit corneal tomography |
|---|