论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
Authors Kanellopoulos AJ
Received 1 March 2020
Accepted for publication 14 August 2020
Published 4 September 2020 Volume 2020:14 Pages 2583—2592
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S251998
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Dr Scott Fraser
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.
Keywords: Pentacam,
Orbscan, Scheimpflug corneal tomography, scanning-slit corneal tomography