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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |