Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) · 2014
Agreement between placido topography and Scheimpflug tomography for corneal astigmatism assessment.
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.
Delrivo Marianella, Ruiseñor Vázquez Pablo R, Galletti Jonatán David, Garibotto Martín, Fuentes Bonthoux Fernando, Pförtner Tomás, Galletti Jeremías Gastón
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate inter-device agreement between Placido topography (iTrace; Tracey Technologies, Houston, TX) and Scheimpflug tomography (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) for measuring corneal power and cylinder and axis of astigmatism.
METHODS: Observational case series of 54 eyes from 54 subjects with no ocular disease. Main outcome measures were corneal power, cylinder power, and axis of astigmatism and their agreement was assessed by Bland–Altman analysis.
RESULTS: For corneal power and corneal cylinder, 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were considered good (−0.38 to 0.45 diopters [D] and −0.49 to 0.27 D, respectively). In contrast, the 95% LoA for corneal astigmatism axis exceeded the clinically relevant margins (−14.8 to 13.5): 28 eyes (52%) had a greater than 5° difference, 10 eyes (19%) had a greater than 10° difference, and 4 eyes (7%) had a greater than 20° difference between instruments. This absolute difference was significantly correlated with average corneal cylinder (Spearman’s r = −0.379, P = .005) but not with average corneal power. In eyes with corneal astigmatism 2 D or greater, the 95% LoA for axis were −8.7° to 6.7°, whereas in those with corneal astigmatism less than 1 D, the 95% LoA for axis were −19.1° to 16.6°.
CONCLUSIONS: Placido topography and Scheimpflug tomography show good agreement for corneal power and cylinder, but not for corneal astigmatism axis. These instruments could be used interchangeably only in eyes with corneal astigmatism of 2 D or greater.
METHODS: Observational case series of 54 eyes from 54 subjects with no ocular disease. Main outcome measures were corneal power, cylinder power, and axis of astigmatism and their agreement was assessed by Bland–Altman analysis.
RESULTS: For corneal power and corneal cylinder, 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were considered good (−0.38 to 0.45 diopters [D] and −0.49 to 0.27 D, respectively). In contrast, the 95% LoA for corneal astigmatism axis exceeded the clinically relevant margins (−14.8 to 13.5): 28 eyes (52%) had a greater than 5° difference, 10 eyes (19%) had a greater than 10° difference, and 4 eyes (7%) had a greater than 20° difference between instruments. This absolute difference was significantly correlated with average corneal cylinder (Spearman’s r = −0.379, P = .005) but not with average corneal power. In eyes with corneal astigmatism 2 D or greater, the 95% LoA for axis were −8.7° to 6.7°, whereas in those with corneal astigmatism less than 1 D, the 95% LoA for axis were −19.1° to 16.6°.
CONCLUSIONS: Placido topography and Scheimpflug tomography show good agreement for corneal power and cylinder, but not for corneal astigmatism axis. These instruments could be used interchangeably only in eyes with corneal astigmatism of 2 D or greater.