Comparison of anterior segment parameters and axial length measurements performed on a Scheimpflug device with biometry function and a reference optical biometer

Muzyka−Woźniak, Maria; Oleszko, Adam

doi:10.1007/s10792-018-0927-x

Cited by 42 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For Cassini and Pentacam, keratometry was obtained for a diameter of 3 mm, whereas with IOL-Master, the corneal power was calculated for a 2.5 mm optical zone. This finding is consistent with that obtained by Muzyka-Woźniak et al, 26 27 Visser et al 28 and Reuland et al 29 also found differences between Pentacam and IOL Master systems (mean differences around 0.03 mm in corneal curvature), reaching statistical significance or not depending on the type of sample evaluated.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

Molina‐Martín

Piñero

Caballero

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The objective of this study was to compare the central corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different systems in healthy eyes and to assess the level of interchangeability between them. Methods This was a comparative study examining 30 healthy eyes of 30 patients (age 15–53 years). A complete eye examination was performed in all cases including analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism with three devices: the colour‐LED topography system Cassini (i‐Optics) (CAS), the Scheimpflug‐based system Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte) (PTC) and the optical biometer IOL‐Master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) (IOLM). Differences between devices in terms of curvature in the flattest (flat K) and steepest meridians (steep K) as well as in the magnitude (AST) and power vector components of astigmatism (J0 and J45) were evaluated. The interchangeability between devices was evaluated with the Bland–Altman method. Results Statistically significant differences between devices were found in steep K and flat K (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences between devices were found in AST (p = 0.057) and J0 power vector (p = 0.185). However, differences between devices in J45 did reach statistical significance (p = 0.039). Ranges of agreement for curvature measures ranged from 0.123 (flat K, CAS‐PTC) to 0.165 mm (steep K, CAS‐PTC). Ranges for the magnitude of astigmatism were 0.868, 1.059 and 0.739 D in CAS‐IOLM, PTC‐IOLM and CAS‐PTC comparisons, respectively. For J0 and J45, ranges of agreement were below 0.522 D. Conclusions Measurements of central corneal curvature and astigmatism obtained with the three devices evaluated cannot be used interchangeably.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

Molina‐Martín

Piñero

Caballero

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirdly, we did not compare biometric parameters with other standard optical biometers, ie, IOL Master or Lenstar LS 900. Since sufficient evidence comparing between Pentacam AXL and IOL Master was retrieved, 8 , 10 , 11 , 18 , 21 , 22 it makes indirect comparisons among various devices possible. Corneal curvatures and axial length measured by Pentacam AXL seemed to have good agreement with those measured by IOL Master.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Using Two Scheimpflug Devices with Integrated Optical Biometers</p>

Supiyaphun

Rattanasiri

Jongkhajornpong

2020

OPTH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the repeatability of anterior segment parameters and axial length (AL) using Pentacam AXL and Galilei G6 and the agreement between both devices. Materials and Methods Eighty-four eyes of 84 participants were measured prospectively with two devices. Outcome measurements included corneal curvatures, anterior chamber depth (ACD), AL, pupil size, and white-to-white distance (WTW). Intra-device repeatability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), within-subject standard deviation (Sw), test–re-test repeatability (TRT=2.77 Sw), and coefficient of variation (CoV). Agreement between two devices was analyzed using Bland–Altman plots. Results For each device, the Sw of corneal curvatures, ACD, and AL were lower than 0.25 D, 0.04 mm, and 0.04 mm, respectively. The ICC was higher than 0.90 in all parameters measured by Pentacam AXL, whereas three parameters measured by Galilei G6 (steep meridian at anterior and posterior cornea, and pupil size) were lower than 0.90. Comparing to Galilei G6, Pentacam AXL led to significantly lower mean anterior cornea curvatures (Km) with the mean difference (95% level of agreement; LoA) of −0.12 D (−0.36, 0.12, P <0.001). For ACD, there was no significant difference between the two devices. Pentacam AXL led to significantly lower AL, pupil size, and WTW, with the mean differences (95% LoA) of −0.04 mm (−0.35, 0.27), −0.18 mm (−0.71, 0.35), and −0.35 mm (−0.61, −0.10), respectively. Conclusion We found good repeatability of corneal curvature, ACD, and AL in both devices. Most parameters obtained from Pentacam AXL were statistically significantly different from those obtained from Galilei G6, except for steep meridians and ACD.

show abstract

“…21 Shajari et al 16 reported no signi cant difference between ACD measurements by PCI and Scheimp ug-PCI, which is similar to what was reported by Muzyka-Wozniak and Oleszko. 9 In contrast, Fernandez-Vigo et al reported that the ACD measured by Pentacam® (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) was deeper than by PCI, 8 which is similar to a report by Dong and associates in normal eyes within 3 diopters of the refractive errors and by Utine et al in myopic and emmetropic eyes. 11,22 Regarding the ACD measured by OLCI and PCI, Mandal and colleagues published an average ACD of 3.28 ± 0.47 mm by OLCI and 3.28 ± 0.43 mm by PCI, with no statistical signi cance between them, 15 whereas OLCI provided greater mean ACDs than that from PCI in two different studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…When the biometric parameters were compared by Pentacam AXL and PCI, although there was an excellent agreement with the ACD, 8 there were signi cant differences in corneal curvature and the AL. 9 In clinical settings, each type of biometry devices has its own advantage. OLCI showed a better measurement success rate in dense or posterior subcapsular cataracts than PCI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have reported the comparison of anterior segment parameters or AL measurements between a rotating Scheimp ug camera system and PCI. 8,9,11 Sabatino and colleagues published a comparative analysis of optical biometers measured by OLCI and PCI. 12 However, current literature has not evaluated the correlation and agreement of the results obtained with OLCI and Scheimp ug-PCI in cataract eyes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Optical Low-coherence Interferometry and Scheimpflug Imaging Combined with Partial Coherence Interferometry Biometers in Cataract Patients

Kim¹,

Han²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the agreement between the biometers measured by optical low-coherence interferometry (OLCI, Aladdin) and those measured by Scheimpflug imaging combined with partial coherence interferometry (Scheimpflug-PCI, Pentacam AXL) in cataract patients.Methods: The axial length (AL), corneal power (keratometry, K), anterior chamber depth (ACD), and corneal astigmatism were measured with the two devices in patients with cataracts. The difference and correlation were evaluated with a paired t-test (p) and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), respectively.Results: One hundred sixty-four eyes of 95 patients were analyzed. The mean AL taken by OLCI was longer with excellent correlation (OLCI 23.25 mm, Scheimpflug-PCI 23.23 mm, p = < 0.0001, r = 0.9990). OLCI measured the ACD 0.08 mm shallower than Scheimpflug-PCI (p = 0.0003, r = 0.7386). The difference was statistically significant for flat K (p = 0.0428). The mean K and steep K were not significantly different. Vector analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of astigmatism and the oblique vector between the two devices (p = 0.1441 and p = 0.4147, respectively). Only the cardinal vector was different (p = 0.0087).Conclusions: Although OCLI and Scheimpflug-PCI showed strong correlations for AL, K, ACD, and corneal astigmatism in cataract patients, there were small but statistically significant differences in the AL, ACD, flat K, and cardinal vector. The two devices are not interchangeable for calculating intraocular lens power.

show abstract

Comparison of anterior segment parameters and axial length measurements performed on a Scheimpflug device with biometry function and a reference optical biometer

Cited by 42 publications

References 28 publications

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

<p>Comparison of Anterior Segment Parameters and Axial Length Using Two Scheimpflug Devices with Integrated Optical Biometers</p>

Comparison of Optical Low-coherence Interferometry and Scheimpflug Imaging Combined with Partial Coherence Interferometry Biometers in Cataract Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About