Cargando…

Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes

PURPOSE: 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 us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7481306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32943840
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S251998
_version_ 1783580573031202816
author Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John
author_facet Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John
author_sort Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7481306
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74813062020-09-16 Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John Clin Ophthalmol Original Research PURPOSE: 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. Dove 2020-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7481306/ /pubmed/32943840 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S251998 Text en © 2020 Kanellopoulos. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Kanellopoulos, Anastasios John
Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title_full Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title_fullStr Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title_full_unstemmed Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title_short Scheimpflug vs Scanning-Slit Corneal Tomography: Comparison of Corneal and Anterior Chamber Tomography Indices for Repeatability and Agreement in Healthy Eyes
title_sort scheimpflug vs scanning-slit corneal tomography: comparison of corneal and anterior chamber tomography indices for repeatability and agreement in healthy eyes
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7481306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32943840
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S251998
work_keys_str_mv AT kanellopoulosanastasiosjohn scheimpflugvsscanningslitcornealtomographycomparisonofcornealandanteriorchambertomographyindicesforrepeatabilityandagreementinhealthyeyes