Archivos de la Sociedad Espanola de Oftalmologia · 2019
Corneal dioptric power and astigmatism: A comparison between colour light-emitting diode based (CassiniTM) and Scheimpgflug technology (PentacamTM) topography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
García-García Á, Melián R, Carreras H, Rodríguez-Hernández V, Reñones J, Estévez B
Аннотация
AIM: To determine the agreement and to compare the measurements obtained from a colour light-emitting diode based (CassiniTM) and Scheimpflug (PentacamTM) based topography in the evaluation of the anterior, posterior, and total corneal power and astigmatism.
METHODS: A total of 30 eyes from 30 healthy patients were consecutively measured using PentacamTM and CassiniTM. The main evaluated parameters were the anterior, posterior, and total dioptric power, and a power vector analysis of the astigmatism. The agreement between both devices was analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and performing Bland-Altman plots. The comparison of means was performed using paired Student t-test.
RESULTS: The agreement between both devices when comparing the anterior and total corneal dioptric power was very high (ICC>0.85), but not when studying the posterior cornea (ICC<0.5). In the astigmatism analysis, measurements from the anterior cornea also showed an excellent agreement (ICC>0.78), but was poor for the corneal posterior surface (ICC<0.31). When studying the corneal dioptric power, no statistically significant differences were found for the anterior surface (P>.05), but PentacamTM obtained higher values for posterior and total surfaces (P<.001). As regards the magnitude of the astigmatism, no significant differences were found between both devices.
CONCLUSION: Both devices were highly comparable when studying the anterior cornea, but the agreement was poor-moderate when measuring posterior cornea. Therefore, the data obtained by both topographers are not interchangeable.
METHODS: A total of 30 eyes from 30 healthy patients were consecutively measured using PentacamTM and CassiniTM. The main evaluated parameters were the anterior, posterior, and total dioptric power, and a power vector analysis of the astigmatism. The agreement between both devices was analysed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and performing Bland-Altman plots. The comparison of means was performed using paired Student t-test.
RESULTS: The agreement between both devices when comparing the anterior and total corneal dioptric power was very high (ICC>0.85), but not when studying the posterior cornea (ICC<0.5). In the astigmatism analysis, measurements from the anterior cornea also showed an excellent agreement (ICC>0.78), but was poor for the corneal posterior surface (ICC<0.31). When studying the corneal dioptric power, no statistically significant differences were found for the anterior surface (P>.05), but PentacamTM obtained higher values for posterior and total surfaces (P<.001). As regards the magnitude of the astigmatism, no significant differences were found between both devices.
CONCLUSION: Both devices were highly comparable when studying the anterior cornea, but the agreement was poor-moderate when measuring posterior cornea. Therefore, the data obtained by both topographers are not interchangeable.