International ophthalmology · 2026
Comparison of corneal topography maps of a swept-source OCT biometer and a Scheimpflug device.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Müller Michael, Hemkeppler Eva, Böhm Myriam, Jandewerth Tyll, Lwowski Christoph, Kohnen Thomas
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Rating of central corneal topography of a swept-source OCT biometer (IOL Master 700) and tomographic maps from a Scheimpflug device (Pentacam AXL) by different experienced professionals regarding irregularities to support decisions on implanting premium intraocular lenses (IOLs).
METHODS: In this prospective study healthy eyes (H), irregular corneas (I) and eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery (P) were randomly selected. Five observers with different experience in corneal map evaluation compared the corneal topography maps of both devices individually. They answered a questionnaire for each picture and eye and the matched pictures. The questionnaire included the similarity in regularity of the cornea, the classification of the pictures regarding the included patient groups and the decision of premium IOL implantation.
RESULTS: The study included 25 eyes per group. The correct category (H, I or P) was reported in 52% to 70% of individual cases. Except one observer (p < 0.001) there were no significant difference between the two devices. Most observers rated irregular corneas significantly different than healthy or post refractive surgery eyes (p < 0.001). There were significant inter-observer agreements among the three observers for rating implantation premium IOLs 0.137 to 0.374 (p < 0.05) and rating the correct category 0.435 (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Irregular corneas were rated as significantly different to healthy or post refractive surgery eyes. Most observers rated the images of the swept-source OCT biometer and the Scheimpflug device equally. Regarding the selection of premium IOL experienced colleagues are preferable.
METHODS: In this prospective study healthy eyes (H), irregular corneas (I) and eyes with previous corneal refractive surgery (P) were randomly selected. Five observers with different experience in corneal map evaluation compared the corneal topography maps of both devices individually. They answered a questionnaire for each picture and eye and the matched pictures. The questionnaire included the similarity in regularity of the cornea, the classification of the pictures regarding the included patient groups and the decision of premium IOL implantation.
RESULTS: The study included 25 eyes per group. The correct category (H, I or P) was reported in 52% to 70% of individual cases. Except one observer (p < 0.001) there were no significant difference between the two devices. Most observers rated irregular corneas significantly different than healthy or post refractive surgery eyes (p < 0.001). There were significant inter-observer agreements among the three observers for rating implantation premium IOLs 0.137 to 0.374 (p < 0.05) and rating the correct category 0.435 (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Irregular corneas were rated as significantly different to healthy or post refractive surgery eyes. Most observers rated the images of the swept-source OCT biometer and the Scheimpflug device equally. Regarding the selection of premium IOL experienced colleagues are preferable.