Cargando…

Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers

PURPOSE: To compare the anterior segment indices measured by two Scheimpflug camera machines; Galilei and Pentacam. METHODS: In this observational case series, the anterior segment indices of myopic healthy subjects seeking for refractive surgery were measured by Pentacam and Galilei on the same day...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza, Motevasseli, Tahmineh, Yazdizadeh, Forouzan, Karimian, Farid, Fekri, Sahba, Baradaran-Rafii, Amir
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28299003
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_104_16
_version_ 1782512777099739136
author Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Motevasseli, Tahmineh
Yazdizadeh, Forouzan
Karimian, Farid
Fekri, Sahba
Baradaran-Rafii, Amir
author_facet Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Motevasseli, Tahmineh
Yazdizadeh, Forouzan
Karimian, Farid
Fekri, Sahba
Baradaran-Rafii, Amir
author_sort Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the anterior segment indices measured by two Scheimpflug camera machines; Galilei and Pentacam. METHODS: In this observational case series, the anterior segment indices of myopic healthy subjects seeking for refractive surgery were measured by Pentacam and Galilei on the same day. Analyzed parameters were anterior and posterior best fit spheres (BFS), axial curvature, true corneal power, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber (AC) depth, AC volume, AC angle, and pupil diameter. RESULTS: This study included 176 eyes of 88 participants. Mean radius of the anterior BFS was 7.79 ± 0.34 mm versus 7.75 ± 0.39 mm measured by Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.877, P < 0.001). Corresponding values for the mean radius of posterior BFS were 6.42 ± 0.32 and 6.47 ± 0.38 mm, respectively (r = 0.879, P < 0.001). Anterior corneal mean power was 43.8 ± 1.9 diopters (D) with Pentacam and 43.8 ± 2.4 D with Galilei (r = 0.905,P < 0.001). Posterior corneal mean power was measured − 6.3 ± 0.3 and − 6.3 ± 0.4 D using Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.873, P < 0.001). True corneal power was 43.9 ± 1.9 D with Pentacam and 43.5 ± 2.3 D with Galilei (r = 0.909, P < 0.001). CCT was 537 ± 44 and 553 ± 51 μm measured by Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.796, P < 0.001). AC depth measurements using Pentacam and Galilei were 3.29 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.38 mm (P < 0.001), respectively; AC volume was 207 ± 50 and 129 ± 39 mm(3)≥ (P = 0.004), and AC angle was 39.7 ± 9.2 and 54.2 ± 5.2 degrees (P = 0.051), respectively. Average pupil diameter was measured 3.91 ± 1.77 mm by Pentacam and 3.34 ± 0.89 mm by Galilei (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant correlation between the Pentacam and Galilei in all measured parameters except AC angle, AC volume, and average pupil diameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5340059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53400592017-03-15 Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza Motevasseli, Tahmineh Yazdizadeh, Forouzan Karimian, Farid Fekri, Sahba Baradaran-Rafii, Amir J Ophthalmic Vis Res Original Article PURPOSE: To compare the anterior segment indices measured by two Scheimpflug camera machines; Galilei and Pentacam. METHODS: In this observational case series, the anterior segment indices of myopic healthy subjects seeking for refractive surgery were measured by Pentacam and Galilei on the same day. Analyzed parameters were anterior and posterior best fit spheres (BFS), axial curvature, true corneal power, central corneal thickness (CCT), anterior chamber (AC) depth, AC volume, AC angle, and pupil diameter. RESULTS: This study included 176 eyes of 88 participants. Mean radius of the anterior BFS was 7.79 ± 0.34 mm versus 7.75 ± 0.39 mm measured by Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.877, P < 0.001). Corresponding values for the mean radius of posterior BFS were 6.42 ± 0.32 and 6.47 ± 0.38 mm, respectively (r = 0.879, P < 0.001). Anterior corneal mean power was 43.8 ± 1.9 diopters (D) with Pentacam and 43.8 ± 2.4 D with Galilei (r = 0.905,P < 0.001). Posterior corneal mean power was measured − 6.3 ± 0.3 and − 6.3 ± 0.4 D using Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.873, P < 0.001). True corneal power was 43.9 ± 1.9 D with Pentacam and 43.5 ± 2.3 D with Galilei (r = 0.909, P < 0.001). CCT was 537 ± 44 and 553 ± 51 μm measured by Pentacam and Galilei, respectively (r = 0.796, P < 0.001). AC depth measurements using Pentacam and Galilei were 3.29 ± 0.4 and 3.3 ± 0.38 mm (P < 0.001), respectively; AC volume was 207 ± 50 and 129 ± 39 mm(3)≥ (P = 0.004), and AC angle was 39.7 ± 9.2 and 54.2 ± 5.2 degrees (P = 0.051), respectively. Average pupil diameter was measured 3.91 ± 1.77 mm by Pentacam and 3.34 ± 0.89 mm by Galilei (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant correlation between the Pentacam and Galilei in all measured parameters except AC angle, AC volume, and average pupil diameter. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5340059/ /pubmed/28299003 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_104_16 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Journal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Baradaran-Rafii, Alireza
Motevasseli, Tahmineh
Yazdizadeh, Forouzan
Karimian, Farid
Fekri, Sahba
Baradaran-Rafii, Amir
Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title_full Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title_fullStr Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title_short Comparison between Two Scheimpflug Anterior Segment Analyzers
title_sort comparison between two scheimpflug anterior segment analyzers
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5340059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28299003
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jovr.jovr_104_16
work_keys_str_mv AT baradaranrafiialireza comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers
AT motevasselitahmineh comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers
AT yazdizadehforouzan comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers
AT karimianfarid comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers
AT fekrisahba comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers
AT baradaranrafiiamir comparisonbetweentwoscheimpfluganteriorsegmentanalyzers