American journal of ophthalmology · 2018
Comparing Change in Anterior Curvature After Corneal Cross-linking Using Scanning-slit and Scheimpflug Technology.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lang Paul Z, Thulasi Praneetha, Khandelwal Sumitra S, Hafezi Farhad, Randleman J Bradley
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the correlation between anterior axial curvature difference maps following corneal cross-linking (CXL) for progressive keratoconus obtained from Scheimpflug-based tomography and Placido-based topography.
DESIGN: Between-devices reliability analysis of randomized clinical trial data.
METHODS: Corneal imaging was collected at a single-center institution preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using Scheimpflug-based tomography (Pentacam; Oculus Inc, Lynnwood, Washington, USA) and scanning-slit, Placido-based topography (Orbscan II; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, USA) in patients with progressive keratoconus receiving standard protocol CXL (3 mW/cm2 for 30 minutes). Regularization index (RI), absolute maximum keratometry (K Max), and change in K Max (ΔK Max) were compared between the 2 devices at each time point.
RESULTS: Fifty-one eyes from 36 patients were evaluated at all time points. Values were significantly different at all time points (56.01 ± 5.3 diopters [D] Scheimpflug vs 55.04 ± 5.1 D scanning-slit preoperatively [P = .003]; 54.58 ± 5.3 D Scheimpflug vs 53.12 ± 4.9 D scanning-slit at 12 months [P < .0001]) but strongly correlated between devices (r = 0.90-0.93) at all time points. The devices were not significantly different at any time point for either ΔK Max or RI but were poorly correlated at all time points (r = 0.41-0.53 for ΔK Max, r = 0.29-0.48 for RI). At 12 months, 95% limits of agreement were 7.51 D for absolute K Max, 8.61 D for ΔK Max, and 19.86 D for RI.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements using Scheimpflug and scanning-slit Placido-based technology are correlated but not interchangeable. Both devices appear reasonable for separately monitoring the cornea's response to CXL; however, caution should be used when comparing results obtained with one measuring technology to the other.
DESIGN: Between-devices reliability analysis of randomized clinical trial data.
METHODS: Corneal imaging was collected at a single-center institution preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using Scheimpflug-based tomography (Pentacam; Oculus Inc, Lynnwood, Washington, USA) and scanning-slit, Placido-based topography (Orbscan II; Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, USA) in patients with progressive keratoconus receiving standard protocol CXL (3 mW/cm2 for 30 minutes). Regularization index (RI), absolute maximum keratometry (K Max), and change in K Max (ΔK Max) were compared between the 2 devices at each time point.
RESULTS: Fifty-one eyes from 36 patients were evaluated at all time points. Values were significantly different at all time points (56.01 ± 5.3 diopters [D] Scheimpflug vs 55.04 ± 5.1 D scanning-slit preoperatively [P = .003]; 54.58 ± 5.3 D Scheimpflug vs 53.12 ± 4.9 D scanning-slit at 12 months [P < .0001]) but strongly correlated between devices (r = 0.90-0.93) at all time points. The devices were not significantly different at any time point for either ΔK Max or RI but were poorly correlated at all time points (r = 0.41-0.53 for ΔK Max, r = 0.29-0.48 for RI). At 12 months, 95% limits of agreement were 7.51 D for absolute K Max, 8.61 D for ΔK Max, and 19.86 D for RI.
CONCLUSIONS: Measurements using Scheimpflug and scanning-slit Placido-based technology are correlated but not interchangeable. Both devices appear reasonable for separately monitoring the cornea's response to CXL; however, caution should be used when comparing results obtained with one measuring technology to the other.