Journal List > J Korean Ophthalmol Soc > v.53(11) > 1009218

TOOLS
Lee, Ahn, Seo, Kim, and Kim: Comparison of Corneal Measurement Values between Two Types of Topography
Original Article
Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society

Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society 2012; 53(11): 1584-1590.

Published online: 19 November 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2012.53.11.1584

Comparison of Corneal Measurement Values between Two Types of Topography

Dong Min Lee, MD, Ji Min Ahn, MD, Kyoung Yul Seo, MD, PhD, Eung Kweon Kim, MD, PhD, Tae Im Kim, MD, PhD

The Institute of Vision Research, Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Address reprint requests to Tae Im Kim, MD, PhD. Department of Ophthalmology, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, #50 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2228-3570, Fax: 82-2-312-0541, taeimkim@gmail.com

Received 2 March 2012       Accepted 8 October 2012

Copyright © 2012 The Korean Ophthalmological Society

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the corneal measurements of Sirius and Pentacam in normal cornea and post-corneal refractive surgery patients.

Methods

Subjects were tested by Pentacam (OCULUS, Wetzlar, Germany), and Sirius (CSO, Firenze, Italy). Measurements included central corneal thickness, thinnest corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth, anterior chamber volume, iridocorneal angle, corneal volume, pupil size, and curvature of cornea.

Results

A total of 88 eyes from 44 patients were included in the present study. When comparing Sirius and Pentacam in the normal cornea, corneal thickness (p = 0.693), thinnest corneal thickness (p = 0.386), anterior chamber depth (p = 0.155), anterior chamber volume (p = 0.650), and pupil diameter (p = 0.124) did not differ significantly. Corneal curvature (p < 0.001), corneal volume (p = 0.023), and iridocorneal angle (p < 0.001) were statistically different. When comparing Sirius and Pentacam in post-corneal refractive surgery patients, corneal thickness (p = 0.056) did not differ significantly. There was a statistical difference in corneal curvature (p < 0.001), thinnest corneal thickness (p = 0.019), anterior chamber depth (p < 0.001), anterior chamber volume (p < 0.001), iridocorneal angle (p < 0.001), corneal volume (p < 0.001), and pupil diameter (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Anterior segment measurements with Pentacam and Sirius showed differences in post-corneal refractive surgery patients.

Keywords: Cornea, Pentacam, Refractive surgery, Sirius, Tomography

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Pearson correlation in normal cornea.
jkos-53-1584-g001
Figure 2
Pearson correlation in post-corneal refractive surgery patients.
jkos-53-1584-g002
Table 1
Comparison of Sirius and Pentacam in normal cornea
jkos-53-1584-i001

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 2
Comparison of Corneal curvature in normal cornea
jkos-53-1584-i002

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 3
Comparison of Sirius and Pentacam in post-corneal refractive surgery patients
jkos-53-1584-i003

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

Table 4
Comparison of Corneal curvature in post-corneal refractive surgery patients
jkos-53-1584-i004

Values are presented as mean ± SD.

References

1. Cairns G, McGhee CN. Orbscan computerized topography: attributes, applications, and limitations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005. 31:205–220.
2. Belin MW, Khachikian SS. An introduction to understanding elevation-based topography: how elevation data are displayed - a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2009. 37:14–29.
3. Wegener A, Laser-Junga H. Photography of the anterior eye segment according to Scheimpflug's principle: options and limitations - a review. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2009. 37:144–154.
4. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Corneal topography. Ophthalmology. 1999. 106:1628–1638.
5. Shankar H, Taranath D, Santhirathelagan CT, Pesudovs K. Anterior segment biometry with the Pentacam: comprehensive assessment of repeatability of automated measurements. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008. 34:103–113.
6. Kawamorita T, Nakayama N, Uozato H. Repeatability and reproducibility of corneal curvature measurements using the Pentacam and Keratron topography systems. J Refract Surg. 2009. 25:539–544.
7. Menassa N, Kaufmann C, Goggin M, et al. Comparison and reproducibility of corneal thickness and curvature readings obtained by the Galilei and the Orbscan II analysis systems. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008. 34:1742–1747.
8. Li H, Leung CK, Wong L, et al. Comparative study of central corneal thickness measurement with slit-lamp optical coherence tomography and visante optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology. 2008. 115:796–801.e2.
9. Savini G, Carbonelli M, Barboni P, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of automatic measurements performed by a dual Scheimpflug analyzer in unoperated and post-refractive surgery eyes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. 37:302–309.
10. Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Repeatability of automatic measurements by a new Scheimpflug camera combined with Placido topography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. 37:1809–1816.
11. Hashemi H, Mehravaran S. Corneal changes after laser refractive surgery for myopia: comparison of Orbscan II and Pentacam findings. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2007. 33:841–847.
12. Savini G, Barboni P, Carbonelli M, Hoffer KJ. Accuracy of Scheimpflug corneal power measurements for intraocular lens power calculation. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009. 35:1193–1197.
13. Shin YJ, Kim NH, Kim DH. Comparison of Pentacam with Orbscan. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc. 2007. 48:637–641.
14. Klyce SD. Corneal topography and the new wave. Cornea. 2000. 19:723–729.
15. Kawamorita T, Uozato H, Kamiya K, et al. Repeatability, reproducibility, and agreement characteristics of rotating Scheimpflug photography and scanning-slit corneal topography for corneal power measurement. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009. 35:127–133.
16. Jain R, Dilraj G, Grewal SP. Repeatability of corneal parameters with Pentacam after laser in situ keratomileusis. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2007. 55:341–347.
17. Buehl W, Stojanac D, Sacu S, et al. Comparison of three methods of measuring corneal thickness and anterior chamber depth. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006. 141:7–12.
18. Bedei A, Appolloni I, Madesani A, et al. Repeatability and agreement of 2 Scheimpflug analyzers in measuring the central corneal thickness and anterior chamber angle, volume, and depth. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2012. 22:Suppl 7. S29–S32.
19. Nilforoushan MR, Speaker M, Marmor M, et al. Comparative evaluation of refractive surgery candidates with Placido topography, Orbscan II, Pentacam, and wavefront analysis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008. 34:623–631.
20. González Pérez J, Cerviño A, Giraldez MJ, et al. Accuracy and precision of EyeSys and Orbscan systems on calibrated spherical test surfaces. Eye Contact Lens. 2004. 30:74–78.
21. Savini G, Carbonelli M, Sbreglia A, et al. Comparison of anterior segment measurements by 3 Scheimpflug tomographers and 1 Placido corneal topographer. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011. 37:1679–1685.
TOOLS
Similar articles