nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 25.09.2023 | ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of a New Scheimpflug Camera and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomographer for Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters

verfasst von: Xiaomin Huang, Xuanqiao Lin, Yizhou Yang, Jinjin Yu, Jiacheng Wang, Kexin Li, Yiran Wang, Giacomo Savini, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Xingtao Zhou, Jinhai Huang

Erschienen in: Ophthalmology and Therapy | Ausgabe 6/2023

Abstract

Introduction

This study evaluated the differences and agreement between a new Scheimpflug camera (Scansys) and a swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomographer (CASIA 2) for measurements of the anterior segment of the eye in normal subjects.

Methods

This prospective study included 84 eyes from 84 normal adult subjects who underwent three consecutive measurements with the Scansys and the CASIA 2 in random order. The mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism magnitude (AST), J₀, and J₄₅ vectors for both anterior and posterior corneal surfaces, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), and anterior chamber depth (ACD) were obtained by both devices. The difference between these two devices was assessed using paired t test and violin plots. Bland–Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoAs) were used to evaluate agreement.

Results

No statistically significant differences between the two devices were found for the anterior AST, anterior J₄₅, and posterior J₄₅ (P > 0.05). The remaining parameters were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05), but the differences not clinically significant. The violin plots showed that the distribution and probability density of the measured parameters were similar for both devices. Bland–Altman plots revealed high agreement for the measured parameters between the Scansys and CASIA 2, with narrow 95% LoAs.

Conclusions

In terms of assessing parameters for the anterior segment, our study indicated that Scansys and CASIA 2 generally showed significant agreement. The two devices used in this study’s assessment of all the parameters can be used interchangeably in refractive analysis.

Xiaomin Huang, Xuanqiao Lin and Yizhou Yang contributed equally as first authors.

Key Summary Points

Why carry out this study?

With the rising prevalence of myopia, the need for refractive surgery is increasing. Accurate measurement of the ocular anterior segment parameter is necessary for personalized surgical design and preoperative risk assessment for refractive surgery.

The study asks whether significant agreement exists between the new Scheimpflug camera (Scansys) and the swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomographer (CASIA 2).

What was learned from the study?

In measurements of the anterior segment of the eye, our data indicates high agreement between Scansys and CASIA 2. Therefore, we suggest that all measured parameters can be considered interchangeable in refractive analysis.

Introduction

The parameters of the anterior corneal surface significantly affect corneal curvature and refractive power, which are essential during the preoperative examination for cataract and refractive surgery [1]. In addition, the parameters of the posterior corneal surface contribute to the early diagnosis of keratoconus, corneal ectasia, and other corneal diseases [2]. Therefore, precise measurements of the anterior segment of the eye are necessary for personalized surgery design and the assessment of preoperative risk in cataract and refractive surgery [3, 4].

With the evolution of new technologies, various principles-based ocular biometers have been produced. Optical biometric devices have the advantages of being rapid and non-contact, and they are therefore widely used in the preoperative examination of corneal refractive surgery [5‐7]. Devices based on reflection techniques, such as keratometers and Placido discs, can only detect the anterior surface of the cornea, but devices based on tomographic imaging techniques, such as Scheimpflug and optical coherence tomography (OCT), can detect both the anterior and posterior surfaces [8, 9]. Scheimpflug imaging has been one of the most widely used technologies, e.g. it has been applied in the Pentacam (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany), Galilei (Ziemer Ophthalmology GmbH, Switzerland), and Sirius (CSO, Italy) devices, and its repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement with other devices are excellent [10‐13]. The Scansys (MediWorks, Shanghai, China) is a new three-dimensional anterior segment biometry analyzer using the Scheimpflug imaging principle. It can provide 360° anterior segment data quickly and improve the efficiency of preoperative examination for cataract and refractive surgery.

The anterior segment OCT (AS-OCT) is a more recent imaging technology, and its high resolution and high-quality images compensate well for the shortcoming of Scheimpflug imaging [14]. The swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) technique utilizes a high-speed wavelength tuning laser, improving tissue penetration depth and signal-to-noise ratio [15]. The CASIA 2 (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan) is an improved version of the CASIA SS-1000 (Tomey, Nagoya, Japan), and represents a second-generation AS-OCT device. It has higher scanning depth, scanning density, and imaging resolution than the CASIA SS-1000 [16, 17]. A large number of studies have suggested that CASIA 2 has excellent repeatability and reproducibility in ocular biometry [18‐21].

However, since the Scansys device is relatively new, there are few reports regarding its precision on ocular anterior segment parameter measurement. Therefore, this study compared the differences and agreement between Scansys and CASIA 2 in the measurement of corneal parameters in normal subjects to evaluate the clinical application value of both instruments.

Methods

Subjects

This prospective study enrolled 84 healthy volunteers (84 right eyes) at the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the ethics committee of the Eye & ENT Hospital of Fudan University (2021174). All participants signed informed consent forms after being informed about the study’s goal. The inclusion criteria were (1) subjects over 18 years of age, willing and able to participate in the measurement, (2) no history of wearing contact lenses in the short term (for soft lenses less than 2 weeks and rigid lenses less than 4 weeks), (3) corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) ≥ 20/20, and (4) intraocular pressure (IOP) within the normal range (10–21 mmHg). The exclusion criteria were (1) active ocular inflammation and history of ocular trauma and surgery, (2) ocular diseases such as pterygium, corneal disease, glaucoma, and vitreoretinal disease, (3) connective tissue disorders like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, and (4) dry eyes.

Instruments

The Scansys is based on 360° rotating Scheimpflug image photography, which uses a 470 nm blue light-emitting diode (LED) slit light. The Scansys is based on 360° rotating Scheimpflug image photography, which uses a 470 nm blue LED slit light. Scansys offers two versions of their software: standard and professional. The professional version, which generates 60 tomographic images in a single second, collects 230,400 data points, and is mainly used to optimize intraocular lenses. Our study used the standard version primarily for refractive analysis. It captures 28 anterior and posterior surface tomography pictures of the cornea in one shot, gathering 107,520 data points. The measurement ranges for the horizontal and vertical axes are up to 14 mm and 10 mm, respectively. Additionally, it can monitor the tiniest eye movements and adjust for them using a software algorithm to reduce motion inaccuracies. It provides anterior and posterior corneal topography, including elevation maps, corneal thickness maps, and corneal curvature maps [22].

The CASIA 2, an SS-OCT based biometer with a 1310 nm swept-source laser wavelength, has a scanning speed of 50,000 A-scan/s, a scanning depth of 13 mm, and a longitudinal resolution of 10 μm, and a transverse resolution of 30 μm. The anterior and posterior corneal curvatures are assessed via 16 radial scans over 0.3 s [16].

Procedures

A well-trained operator measured each participant’s eyes with both instruments in random order. Each subject's eyes were measured three times in each eye. Because of the similarity of the two eyes of the same patient, only the participant’s right eye was included in this study. To reduce the effect of physiological rhythm on the eye, all subjects were examined at least 3 h after waking up and opening their eyes from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM [23, 24]. Participant were instructed to blink before each measurement to obtain an even tear film. Only measurements with an imaging quality of “OK” were accepted. The measured parameters included steep keratometry (Ks), flat keratometry (Kf), mean keratometry (Km), astigmatism magnitude (AST), central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), and anterior chamber depth (ACD).

The combination of astigmatism magnitude and axis was converted to J₀ and J₄₅ vectors using the following equation [25]:

$${J}_{0} = -(\mathrm{Ks }- \mathrm{Kf})/ 2 \times \mathrm{ cos}2\mathrm{\alpha }$$

$${J}_{45} = -(\mathrm{Ks }- \mathrm{Kf})/ 2 \times \mathrm{ sin}2\mathrm{\alpha }$$

where α represent the cylindrical axis.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS (21.0, IBM Corp, USA) and Excel (v365, Microsoft Corp, USA). Because the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test revealed that all of the data had a normal distribution, the results were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD). As a hybrid of box plots and kernel density plots, violin plots (GraphPad Prism 8, CA, USA) depict the distributions and density of the measured parameters. To determine whether the mean difference between the parameters measured by the two devices was statistically significant, the paired t test was performed; P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Bland–Altman plots and the 95% limits of agreement (95% LoAs) were used to assess the agreement between the two devices. The 95% LoAs was defined as the average difference between the two devices ± 1.96 SD.

Results

A total of 84 right eyes of healthy subjects were analyzed in this prospective study. The male to female ratio was 1:2.2. The mean age was 28 ± 6.4 years (range 18–47 years).

All CDVA values were better than 20/20 Snellen equivalent. The spherical refraction was − 4.57 ± 2.35 diopters (D) (range − 9.25 to − 0.50 D) and cylinder was − 0.63 ± 0.71 D (range − 1.25 to − 2.75 D).

Table 1 and show the difference and agreement of the measured parameters between Scansys and CASIA 2. There were no statistically significant (P > 0.05) differences in the anterior AST, anterior J₄₅, and posterior J₄₅ values measured between Scansys and CASIA 2. Despite being statistically significant (P < 0.05), the differences in the remaining parameters between the two devices were minor. Scansys values for CCT, TCT, posterior AST, and posterior J₀ were slightly larger than those obtained by CASIA 2, while the remaining parameters were lower than those measured by CASIA 2. Figure 1 shows the distinct expression patterns of the two devices, indicating that the distribution and probability density of the measured parameters are similar for both devices. The Bland–Altman plots revealed narrow 95% LoAs for the parameters measured by Scansys and CASIA 2 devices (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5).

Table 1

Means values and distribution for parameters measured by Scansys vs. CASIA 2

Parameters	Scansys			CASIA 2
Parameters	Mean ± SD	Minimum	Maximum	Mean ± SD	Minimum	Maximum
CCT (μm)	546.68 ± 31.95	477.00	626.33	533.23 ± 32.32	462.67	616.33
TCT (μm)	543.28 ± 32.16	473.67	622.67	527.60 ± 32.56	459.00	610.33
ACD (mm)	3.19 ± 0.26	2.56	3.70	3.24 ± 0.26	2.69	3.80
Anterior Km (D)	42.99 ± 1.28	39.48	45.90	43.24 ± 1.28	39.75	46.17
Anterior AST (D)	1.09 ± 0.69	0.13	3.20	1.10 ± 0.65	0.13	3.03
Anterior J₀ (D)	− 0.45 ± 0.37	− 1.59	0.12	− 0.49 ± 0.35	− 1.52	0.28
Anterior J₄₅ (D)	0.06 ± 0.26	− 0.52	0.88	0.08 ± 0.21	− 0.51	0.73
Posterior Km (D)	− 6.06 ± 0.18	− 6.45	− 5.56	− 6.11 ± 0.17	− 6.48	− 5.65
Posterior AST (D)	− 0.34 ± 0.12	− 0.63	− 0.13	− 0.32 ± 0.13	− 0.60	− 0.03
Posterior J₀ (D)	0.16 ± 0.06	0.03	0.31	0.15 ± 0.06	0.01	0.30
Posterior J₄₅ (D)	− 0.03 ± 0.04	− 0.14	0.08	− 0.03 ± 0.04	− 0.11	0.07

CCT central corneal thickness, TCT thinnest corneal thickness, ACD anterior chamber depth, Km mean keratometry, AST astigmatism, SD standard deviation, J₀ corneal astigmatism vector along the 0° meridian, J₄₅ corneal astigmatism vector along the 45° meridian

Table 2

Difference and agreement for parameters measured by Scansys vs. CASIA 2

Parameters	Mean difference ± SD	P value	95% LoAs
CCT (μm)	13.45 ± 4.64	< 0.001	4.36 to 22.55
TCT (μm)	15.68 ± 4.90	< 0.001	6.08 to 25.28
ACD (mm)	− 0.05 ± 0.04	< 0.001	− 0.13 to 0.02
Anterior Km (D)	− 0.25 ± 0.12	< 0.001	− 0.49 to − 0.01
Anterior AST (D)	− 0.01 ± 0.14	0.532	− 0.29 to 0.26
Anterior J₀ (D)	0.04 ± 0.08	0.001	− 0.13 to 0.20
Anterior J₄₅ (D)	− 0.02 ± 0.12	0.177	− 0.25 to 0.21
Posterior Km (D)	0.05 ± 0.04	< 0.001	− 0.02 to 0.12
Posterior AST (D)	− 0.03 ± 0.06	< 0.001	− 0.14 to 0.08
Posterior J₀ (D)	0.01 ± 0.03	0.021	− 0.04 to 0.06
Posterior J₄₅ (D)	− 0.01 ± 0.03	0.139	− 0.07 to 0.05

Discussion

The Scansys, a new anterior segment analyzer, is based on the Scheimpflug imaging principle and can simultaneously acquire anterior and posterior corneal surface, iris, and lens data. Scansys has received little prior research, with only a few studies comparing it to Pentacam [22, 26]; no agreement studies with other instruments are available. As far as we know, this is the first study to compare the agreement of Scansys with an SS-OCT-based biometer. In addition to conventional statistical methods, violin plots were used to visually describe the distribution and density of the measured parameters in our study. The results confirmed that the parameters obtained by Scansys are in excellent agreement with those measured by CASIA 2 and can be used interchangeably in refractive analysis.

In the current study, the CCT and TCT measured by Scansys were slightly larger than those measured by CASIA 2, with a mean difference of 13.45 μm and 15.68 μm, respectively (P < 0.001). Our results are consistent with those of Li et al., in which CCT measured using Pentacam was higher than that of CASIA 2 with a mean difference of 9.64 µm [27]. Kiraly et al. showed that the Pentacam exhibited a thicker CCT than the IOLMaster 700, with a mean difference of 10.99 µm [28]. Corneal thickness measurements with the Scheimpflug technique were generally higher than with SS-OCT, which may be because SS-OCT technology better distinguishes the anterior–posterior border of the cornea [24], and Scheimpflug may include the tear film in the corneal thickness measurement [29]. In the current study, the maximum absolute value of 95% LoAs of CCT and TCT were 22.55 µm and 25.28 µm, respectively. Previous studies have shown that a 10% difference in CCT measurements may result in a 3.4 ± 0.9 mmHg change in IOP measurements [30]. Therefore, considering the mean CCT of normal eyes is 536 ± 31 μm [31], the measurement differences between the Scansys and CASIA 2 correspond to a 5.02% CCT measurement difference; this result has a negligible effect on IOP. Biswas and Biswas found good agreement between the CASIA SS-1000 and Pentacam on CCT and TCT, with 95% LoAs ranging from 1.98 to − 25.42 μm and 1.72 to − 24.99 μm, respectively [24]. Chen et al. compared the Pentacam and a Fourier domain optical coherence tomographer (RTVue-100; Optovue Inc, Fremont, CA, USA) for CCT and found 95% LoAs ranging between − 0.7 and 22.5 μm [32]. Our results are comparable to theirs, indicating good agreement in the measurements of CCT and TCT.

For intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation, every 0.10 mm change in ACD results in a 0.10 to 0.15 D change in refraction [33]. In our study, the mean ACD value measured by Scansys was smaller than those measured by CASIA 2, with a mean difference of − 0.05 mm. This difference is small and would not significantly affect the IOL power calculation. Our results are similar to those reported by Sel et al., in which the mean difference in ACD measurements between Pentacam AXL (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH, Germany) and IOLMaster 700 was 0.04 ± 0.02 mm [34]. In the current study, the 95% LoAs for ACD were narrower, ranging from − 0.13 to 0.02 mm. Özyo and Özyo found high agreement between ACD measured by the IOLMaster 700 and Pentacam with a 95% LoAs of − 0.08–0.09 mm [35]. Li et al. used Pentacam and CASIA 2 to measure ACD with a 95% LoAs of − 0.38 to 0.23 mm, also indicating excellent agreement between the two devices [27]. The 95% LoAs in this study were comparable to or even narrower than the above results, so Scansys has the same high level of agreement as CASIA 2.

Measurement and analysis of corneal curvature are widely used in corneal refractive surgery, IOL power calculation, corneal transplantation, and the diagnosis of keratoconus. In the current study, the difference in Km values on the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces measured by the two devices was − 0.25 D and 0.05 D, respectively, which was small and clinically acceptable. Our findings were consistent with Pérez-Bartolomé et al., who found that the difference between the anterior and posterior Km measured using Pentacam and Anterion (Heidelberg Engineering) was − 0.13 D and − 0.16 D, respectively [36]. The different methods and algorithms of corneal curvature measurement can explain the difference between the two devices. Scansys uses the Scheimpflug method to measure the height of the cornea and triangulation to turn the height data into data about the shape of the cornea [37]. In contrast, CASIA 2 is based on SS-OCT, and measurements are made by scanning two-dimensional cross-sectional maps to compose a simulated corneal surface. According to to the Bland–Altman plots, the maximum absolute values of 95% LoAs on the anterior and posterior Km in this study were 0.49 D and 0.12 D. According to Eibschitz-Tsimhoni’s study [38], every 1.00 D deviation in corneal curvature results in a 0.80 to 1.30 D deviation in IOL power calculation, and an error margin of 0.5 D is acceptable in clinical applications; therefore, the 95% LoAs of Km in this study is clinically acceptable, though constant optimization would still be highly recommended. Many previous studies have demonstrated that measurements from different corneal curvature measurement systems cannot be considered interchangeable. Cui et al., for example, compared color LED technology (Cassini, Casini Technologies, the Hague, the Netherlands) to Pentacam with a 95% LoAs ranging from − 0.60 to 0.76 D for anterior Km [39]. The study by Crawford et al. also suggests that Orbscan II and Pentacam tomographers differ significantly and are not yet interchangeable for clinical use [40]. In contrast, the OCT system and Scheimpflug camera, which simultaneously measure the anterior and posterior corneal curvature, had high agreement in most studies and were consistent with our findings. Zhao et al. reported excellent agreement between the Km values measured by Pentacam and CASIA SS-1000 in children, with a 95% LoAs ranging from − 0.09 to 0.51 D [41]. High agreement was found between CASIA and Pentacam HR (95% LoAs, − 0.24 to 0.54 D) in adults [42]. As a result, the anterior and posterior Km measured by the two devices also showed high agreement.

Accurate measurement of preoperative AST is an integral part of good postoperative monitoring of visual quality in patients. We found that the average difference between AST, J₀, and J₄₅ measured by the two instruments was small, ranging between − 0.03 and 0.04 D. The distribution and density of the violin plots were similar. Furthermore, the maximum absolute 95% LoAs for anterior and posterior surface AST, J₀, and J₄₅ were all less than 0.3 D, with high agreement. Similarly, Gim et al. used Pentacam and Anterion to measure anterior and posterior corneal J₀/J₄₅, obtaining a narrow 95% LoAs range, which showed high agreement [43]. The study by Zhao et al. compared J₀ and J₄₅ between Pentacam and CASIA SS-1000. The maximum absolute 95% LoAs for J₀ was 0.23 D, and that for J₄₅ was 0.31 D [41]. Özyo and Özyo compared Pentacam and IOLMaster 700 for J₀ (95% LoAs of 0.24 to − 0.1 D) and J₄₅ (95% LoAs of 0.27 to − 0.31 D), both of which can be used interchangeably [35].

There were some limitations in this study. First, we did not include other parameters, such as iridocorneal angle, crystalline lens, and pupil parameters. We will compare more parameters in the future. Another constraint was that we only included healthy eyes. Further research should be conducted to compare different groups of patients, particularly those excluded from the study because of corneal ectatic and corneal disease.

Conclusion

Our data show a high agreement between Scansys and CASIA 2 in healthy subjects for ACD, CCT, TCT, Km anterior, Km posterior, AST anterior, AST posterior, J₀ anterior, J₀ posterior, J₄₅ anterior, and J₄₅ posterior. Therefore, we suggest that all measured parameters can be considered interchangeable in refractive analysis.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Xiaomin Huang, Xuanqiao Lin, Yizhou Yang, Jinjin Yu, Jiacheng Wang, Kexin Li, Yiran Wang, Giacomo Savini, Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello, Xingtao Zhou, and Jinhai Huang have nothing to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work. This includes ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by Ethics Committee of the Eye and ENT Hospital of Fudan University (2021174) and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Müller LJ, Pels E, Vrensen GFJM. The specific architecture of the anterior stroma accounts for maintenance of corneal curvature. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:437–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Ambrósio R, Correia FF, Lopes B, et al. Corneal biomechanics in ectatic diseases: refractive surgery implications. Open Ophthalmol J. 2017;11:176–93.PubMedCrossRef

Jin H, Ou Z, Guo H, Zhao P. Myopic laser corneal refractive surgery reduces interdevice agreement in the measurement of anterior corneal curvature. Eye Contact Lens. 2018;44(Suppl 1):S151–7.PubMedCrossRef

Hamer CA, Buckhurst H, Purslow C, Shum GL, Habib NE, Buckhurst PJ. Comparison of reliability and repeatability of corneal curvature assessment with six keratometers. Clin Exp Optom. 2016;99:583–9.PubMedCrossRef

Srivannaboon S, Chirapapaisan C, Chonpimai P, Loket S. Clinical comparison of a new swept-source optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer and a time-domain optical coherence tomography–based optical biometer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2015;41:2224–32.PubMedCrossRef

Wang X, Wu Q. Investigation of the human anterior segment in normal chinese subjects using a dual Scheimpflug analyzer. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:703–8.PubMedCrossRef

Tang M, Chen A, Li Y, Huang D. Corneal power measurement with Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:2115–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Chalkiadaki E, Gartaganis PS, Ntravalias T, Giannakis I, Manousakis E, Karmiris E. Agreement in anterior segment measurements between swept-source and Scheimpflug-based optical biometries in keratoconic eyes: a pilot study. Ther Adv Ophthalmol. 2022;14:1–15.

Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Accuracy of corneal power measurements by a new Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido-disk corneal topography for intraocular lens power calculation in unoperated eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2012;38:787–92.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Rabsilber TM, Khoramnia R, Auffarth GU. Anterior chamber measurements using Pentacam rotating Scheimpflug camera. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2006;32:456–9.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Jahadi Hosseini HR, Katbab A, Khalili MR, Abtahi MB. Comparison of corneal thickness measurements using Galilei, HR Pentacam, and ultrasound. Cornea. 2010;29:1091.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Shirayama M, Wang L, Weikert MP, Koch DD. Comparison of corneal powers obtained from 4 different devices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009;148:528–535.e1.PubMedCrossRef

13.

De la Parra-Colín P, Garza-León M, Barrientos-Gutierrez T. Repeatability and comparability of anterior segment biometry obtained by the Sirius and the Pentacam analyzers. Int Ophthalmol. 2014;34:27–33.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of automatic measurements by a new anterior segment optical coherence tomographer combined with Placido topography and agreement with 2 Scheimpflug cameras. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2018;44:471–8.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Montés-Micó R, Pastor-Pascual F, Ruiz-Mesa R, Tañá-Rivero P. Ocular biometry with swept-source optical coherence tomography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2021;47:802–14.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Shoji T, Kato N, Ishikawa S, et al. In vivo crystalline lens measurements with novel swept-source optical coherent tomography: an investigation on variability of measurement. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2017;1: e000058.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

17.

Ruan X, Yang G, Xia Z, et al. Agreement of anterior segment parameter measurements with CASIA 2 and IOLMaster 700. Front Med. 2022;9: 777443.CrossRef

18.

Xu BY, Mai DD, Penteado RC, Saunders L, Weinreb RN. Reproducibility and agreement of anterior segment parameter measurements obtained using the CASIA2 and spectralis OCT2 optical coherence tomography devices. J Glaucoma. 2017;26:974.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

19.

Zhang T, Zhou Y, Young CA, Chen A, Jin G, Zheng D. Comparison of a new swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography and a Scheimpflug camera for measurement of corneal curvature. Cornea. 2020;39:818.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Fukuda S, Ueno Y, Fujita A, et al. Comparison of anterior segment and lens biometric measurements in patients with cataract. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020;258:137–46.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Wylęgała A, Mazur R, Bolek B, Wylęgała E. Reproducibility, and repeatability of corneal topography measured by Revo NX, Galilei G6 and Casia 2 in normal eyes. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0230589.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Yu A-Y, Ye J, Savini G, et al. Reliability and agreement of the central and mid-peripheral corneal thickness measured by a new Scheimpflug based imaging. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9:1136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

23.

Lattimore MR, Kaupp S, Schallhorn S, Lewis R. Orbscan pachymetry: implications of a repeated measures and diurnal variation analysis. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:977–81.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Biswas S, Biswas P. Agreement and repeatability of corneal thickness and radius among three different corneal measurement devices. Optom Vis Sci. 2021;98:1196.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74:367.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Xu W, Zhai C, Yusufu M, et al. Repeatability and agreement between a reference Scheimpflug tomographer and a low-cost Scheimpflug system. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2023;49:614–9.PubMedCrossRef

27.

Li X, Zhou Y, Young CA, Chen A, Jin G, Zheng D. Comparison of a new anterior segment optical coherence tomography and Oculus Pentacam for measurement of anterior chamber depth and corneal thickness. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:857.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

28.

Kiraly L, Stange J, Kunert KS, Sel S. Repeatability and agreement of central corneal thickness and keratometry measurements between four different devices. J Ophthalmol. 2017;2017:6181405.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Schröder S, Mäurer S, Eppig T, Seitz B, Rubly K, Langenbucher A. Comparison of corneal tomography: repeatability, precision, misalignment, mean elevation, and mean pachymetry. Curr Eye Res. 2018;43:709–16.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kaushik S, Pandav S. Clinical science structure measuring intraocular pressure: how important is the central corneal thickness? J Curr Glaucoma Pract. 2007;1:21–4.CrossRef

31.

Doughty MJ, Zaman ML. Human corneal thickness and its impact on intraocular pressure measures: a review and meta-analysis approach. Surv Ophthalmol. 2000;44:367–408.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Chen S, Huang J, Wen D, Chen W, Huang D, Wang Q. Measurement of central corneal thickness by high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging, Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography and ultrasound pachymetry. Acta Ophthalmol. 2012;90:449–55.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Olsen T. Sources of error in intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1992;18:125–9.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Sel S, Stange J, Kaiser D, Kiraly L. Repeatability and agreement of Scheimpflug-based and swept-source optical biometry measurements. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2017;40:318–22.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Özyol P, Özyol E. Agreement between swept-source optical biometry and Scheimpflug-based topography measurements of anterior segment parameters. Am J Ophthalmol. 2016;169:73–8.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Pérez-Bartolomé F, Rocha-De-Lossada C, Sánchez-González J-M, Feu-Basilio S, Torras-Sanvicens J, Peraza-Nieves J. Anterior-segment swept-source ocular coherence tomography and Scheimpflug imaging agreement for keratometry and pupil measurements in healthy eyes. J Clin Med. 2021;10:5789.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

37.

Belin MW, Khachikian SS. An introduction to understanding elevation-based topography: how elevation data are displayed - a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2009;37:14–29.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Eibschitz-Tsimhoni M, Tsimhoni O, Archer SM, Del Monte MA. Effect of axial length and keratometry measurement error on intraocular lens implant power prediction formulas in pediatric patients. J AAPOS. 2008;12:173–6.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Cui X-H, Yoo Y-S, An Y, Joo C-K. Comparison of keratometric measurements between color light-emitting diode topography and Scheimpflug camera. BMC Ophthalmol. 2019;19:98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

40.

Crawford AZ, Patel DV, McGhee CNJ. Comparison and repeatability of keratometric and corneal power measurements obtained by orbscan II, pentacam, and Galilei corneal tomography systems. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:53–60.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Zhao Y, Chen D, Savini G, et al. The precision and agreement of corneal thickness and keratometry measurements with SS-OCT versus Scheimpflug imaging. Eye Vis. 2020;7:32.CrossRef

42.

Ghoreishi SM, Mortazavi SAA, Abtahi Z-A, et al. Comparison of Scheimpflug and swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography in normal and keratoconus eyes. Int Ophthalmol. 2017;37:965–71.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Gim Y, Jun RM, Han KE. Agreement between Scheimpflug camera and the swept-source optical coherence tomography measurements in keratometry and higher-order aberrations. Korean J Ophthalmol. 2021;35:337–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Titel: Comparison of a New Scheimpflug Camera and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomographer for Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters
verfasst von: Xiaomin Huang
Xuanqiao Lin
Yizhou Yang
Jinjin Yu
Jiacheng Wang
Kexin Li
Yiran Wang
Giacomo Savini
Domenico Schiano-Lomoriello
Xingtao Zhou
Jinhai Huang
Publikationsdatum: 25.09.2023
Verlag: Springer Healthcare
Erschienen in: Ophthalmology and Therapy / Ausgabe 6/2023
Print ISSN: 2193-8245
Elektronische ISSN: 2193-6528
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-023-00813-x

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Comparison of a New Scheimpflug Camera and Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomographer for Measurements of Anterior Segment Parameters