Comparison between two scheimpflug anterior segment analyzers

Baradaran‐Rafii, Alireza; Motevasseli, Tahmineh; Yazdizadeh, Forouzan; Karimian, Farid; Fekri, Sahba; Baradaran-Rafii, Amir

doi:10.4103/jovr.jovr_104_16

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Its significance cannot be overstated, as evidenced by several studies that compared it using various Scheimpflug corneal imaging devices [ 29 , 30 ]. While some studies report that these devices are interchangeable and yield differences that fall within clinically acceptable levels, [ 14 , 22 , 25 , 31 ] others, such as Anoyal et al, [ 13 ] have found significant differences in ACD findings. The authors issued a cautionary note regarding the interchangeable use of these instruments, highlighting the potential for miscalculations in intraocular lens (IOL) power due to substantial disparities in ACD measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes

Khorrami-Nejad,

Khodaparast,

Abdulkadhim

et al. 2024

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the level of agreement and evaluate the reliability of measurements between two Scheimpflug imaging modalities, Scansys (MediWorks, China) and Sirius (CSO, Italy), in quantifying the anterior segment parameters in healthy eyes. Methods In a cross-sectional study, the right eyes of 38 healthy participants without any ocular or systemic diseases were examined. A range of anterior segment parameters including anterior and posterior flat and steep keratometry, central corneal thickness (CCT), thinnest corneal thickness (TCT), anterior chamber depth (ACD), anterior chamber angle (ACA), corneal volume, anterior chamber volume, and horizontal white to white diameter, derived from the sagittal curvature maps were measured. To evaluate the reliability of the measurements, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and correlation coefficient were measured. Additionally, Bland-Altman plots were employed to examine the agreement in mean (bias line) and 95% limits of agreement between the two devices. Results The mean age was 31.5 ± 6.9 (range: 19–47) years. The ICC indicated that the majority of anterior segment parameters had an excellent or good level of reliability, surpassing the threshold of 0.9. Nevertheless, CCT and ACA exhibited a moderate level of reliability, with ICC values of 0.794 and 0.728, respectively. The correlation analysis showed a strong correlation for all the variables tested. The Bland-Altman plots revealed that the bias line was near zero and the 95% limits of agreement were narrow for most variables, except for the anterior flat and steep keratometry, which were found to range from − 0.57 to 0.84 D and − 0.68 to 0.87 D, respectively. Conclusion Scansys and Sirius devices can be effectively used interchangeably for the evaluation of most anterior segment parameters; however, for anterior corneal curvatures, CCT and ACA, their alternative use is not recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes

Khorrami-Nejad,

Khodaparast,

Abdulkadhim

et al. 2024

BMC Ophthalmol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several prior studies have compared correlation and agreement of SimK measurements between the devices we investigated and other newer or older technologies, including IOLMaster 500, Pentacam XL, Verion imaging guiding system, and Sirius Scheimpflug–Placido topographer [ 1 , 9 – 14 ]. Similar to our study, a recent prior study evaluated the repeatability and comparability of the IOLMaster 700 with the Galilei G4 [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Simulated and True Keratometry Measurements Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Dual Scheimpflug–Placido Imaging

Urias

Polychronopoulou

Pandit

2021

Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To compare simulated and total keratometry and corneal astigmatism values between the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4 devices. Methods. A retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients undergoing phacoemulsification by a single surgeon (RTP) from March through September 2020 and who underwent imaging with both the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4. Exclusion criteria were prior corneal surgery, keratectatic diseases and inability to obtain a reliable image during image acquisition. Mean, flat, and steep keratometry values as well as astigmatism magnitude were compared. Results. A total of 200 eyes of 100 patients were included. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were moderate or high for all variables. Mean difference ± SD in SimK and TrueK between devices (G4-IOLM) was 0.05 ± 0.318 diopters and −1.1156 ± 0.438 diopters, respectively ( p < 0.05 for both). The IOLM measured steeper TrueK value than the G4. For SimK, there was a statistically significant difference between devices only for mean keratometry (K), whereas for TrueK, there were significant differences in flat K, steep K, and mean K. Astigmatism analysis revealed a difference in mean (±SD) SimK of 0.07 (±0.57) D at 94 degrees and in mean TrueK of 0.04 (±0.85) D at 108 degrees. Conclusion. Though there is overall good correlation between the IOLMaster 700 and Galilei G4 in SimK and astigmatism measurements, there is a significant difference in TrueK measurements, with the IOLM measuring steeper values by about 1.0 diopter as compared to the G4.

show abstract

“…Baradan-Rafii et al [ 32 ] compared the anterior segment indices, including CT, measured by two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam and Galilei in 176 eyes of 88 participants: mean central corneal thickness obtained with Galilei was significantly thicker than that one measured by Pentacam, with a range of 95% of limit of agreement (-62 to -31 μm) too wide. For this reason, the authors did not suggest to use the two systems interchangeably.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the correlation between corneal thickness (CT) measurements obtained with two Scheimpflug devices, Pentacam HR and Precisio, and to elaborate, if necessary, a regression formula which could make these results comparable. Design Retrospective, Comparative, Observational study. Setting Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, “Scuola Medica Salernitana” University of Salerno, Italy Methods One hundred twenty four healthy eyes of 124 volunteers (65 males; range: 20–32 years; mean age of 24.8 ± 1.7) were included in this study. CT was measured using Pentacam HR and Precisio in three different points: the pupil center (PC), the corneal apex (CA) and the thinnest point (TP). Results CT obtained with both devices at the PC, at the CA and at the TP showed a good correlation (r = 0.97, r = 0.97, r = 0.97, respectively), but Pentacam HR measurements were significantly thicker than those provided by Precisio (p < 0.01). The differences between Pentacam HR and Precisio were 21.9 ± 8.8 μm at the PC, 21.9 ± 8.9 μm at the CA, 19.1 ± 9.0 μm at the TP. The calculated regression formulas were: y = 0.9558x + 2.3196 for the PC, y = 0.9519x + 4.5626 for the CA, y = 0.9364x + 15.436 for the TP, where x is the CT measured with Pentacam HR and y is the Precisio measurement. Conclusions The findings provided by this study highlight that Precisio measures thinner corneas compared to Pentacam HR. The identified regression formulas could be utilized to make interchangeable the results obtained with these two devices.

show abstract

Comparison between two scheimpflug anterior segment analyzers

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes

A comparison of Scansys and Sirius tomography in healthy eyes

Comparison of Simulated and True Keratometry Measurements Using Swept-Source Optical Coherence Tomography and Dual Scheimpflug–Placido Imaging

Corneal thickness evaluation in healthy eyes: Comparison between two different Scheimpflug devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About