Corneal dioptric power and astigmatism: A comparison between colourcolour light-emitting diode based (Cassini™) and Scheimpflug technology (Pentacam™) topography

García-García, Alan Ernesto; Melián, R.; Carreras, Humberto; Rodríguez-Hernández, V.; Reñones, Josefina; Estévez, Benito Vilas

doi:10.1016/j.oftale.2018.11.014

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As happened with standard keratometry, significantly higher values of total keratometric readings were obtained with the IOL-Master compared to Cassini and Pentacam systems. This is consistent with the results of previous comparative studies of Cassini and Scheimpflug imaging-based topographers, confirming the presence of statistically significant differences in total corneal power among these two technologies [16,31,32]. Besides differences in the algorithms used for the calculation of total power among devices, the main factor contributing to discrepancies in total corneal power seems to be the different measures of posterior corneal curvature provided by each device evaluated.…”

Section: Comparison Of Total Keratometric Measures Of the Three Devicessupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Finally, statistically significant differences among devices have also been found in the magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism, with the highest values provided by the Cassini system. Likewise, these differences have also been found to be clinically relevant, with ranges of agreement between measurement systems over 0.45 D. This contrasts with the previous series showing no clinically relevant differences in anterior corneal astigmatism between Cassini and Pentacam systems [15,16,23]. Another comparative study between IOL-Master 500, Cassini, and Pentacam detected differences in the limit of statistical significance among devices for anterior keratometric astigmatism measures, but they were clinically relevant according to the Bland-Altman analysis [26].…”

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurementioning

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the keratometric and total corneal astigmatism measures provided by three different technologies as well as to assess the level of interchangeability among them. Methods: A Prospective, comparative study enrolling 94 eyes from 53 patients (age, 29-77 years) was carried out. All participants were patients with the diagnosis of cataract or patients with a transparent crystalline lens but seeking surgical presbyopia correction. A complete eye examination was performed in all eyes, including corneal analysis with three different devices: IOL-Master 700 (Carl Zeiss Meditec), Cassini (i-Optics), and Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH). Interchangeability of standard and total keratometric readings (equivalent keratometric readings for Pentacam) and astigmatism measures with these three systems were evaluated with the Bland-Altman analysis. Results: Significantly higher standard and total keratometric readings were obtained with the IOL-Master compared to the other two systems (p<0.001). Likewise, a significantly higher magnitude of standard and total keratometric astigmatism was obtained with the Cassini system (p<0.001). Ranges of the agreement for corneal power measurements between devices varied from 0.58 D to 1.53 D, whereas they ranged from 0.46 D to 1.37 D for standard and total astigmatism measurements. Conclusion: Corneal power and astigmatism measures obtained with IOL-Master 700, Cassini, and Pentacam systems cannot be used interchangeably. The impact of these differences on the refractive predictability achieved with different types of intraocular lenses (IOL) should be evaluated in the future in order to define which is the best corneal evaluation approach for optimizing the IOL power calculations.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Total Keratometric Measures Of the Three Devicessupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Comparison Of Standard and Total Corneal Astigmatism Measurementioning

confidence: 66%

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Carreras¹,

García²,

Piñero³

2020

TOOPHTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These authors only obtained statistically significant differences between devices for J 0 (mean difference: 0.18 D). 30 Klijn et al 10 concluded in another comparative study that there were statistically significant differences between Cassini and Pentacam in terms of the magnitude of astigmatism, but not for the axis of the steepest corneal meridian. Chang et al 4 compared the astigmatic measurements obtained with Pentacam and IOL Master and did not find statistically significant differences between devices in the measurement of the magnitude of corneal astigmatism.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Specifically, the absolute value of this power vector component was higher when measured with IOL-Master compared to the Pentacam system. Comparisons between Cassini versus Pentacam, 10,30 and also between Pentacam and IOL-Master 4,31 have been previously performed. Apparently contradictory conclusions/results have been reported, although the ranges of agreement are consistent with those obtained in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apparently contradictory conclusions/results have been reported, although the ranges of agreement are consistent with those obtained in the current study. García-García et al 30 compared the measurements of anterior corneal astigmatism obtained with Cassini and Pentacam, not obtaining significant differences for the magnitude and power vector J 45 of astigmatism. These authors only obtained statistically significant differences between devices for J 0 (mean difference: 0.18 D).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

Molina‐Martín

Piñero

Caballero

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The objective of this study was to compare the central corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different systems in healthy eyes and to assess the level of interchangeability between them. Methods This was a comparative study examining 30 healthy eyes of 30 patients (age 15–53 years). A complete eye examination was performed in all cases including analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism with three devices: the colour‐LED topography system Cassini (i‐Optics) (CAS), the Scheimpflug‐based system Pentacam (Oculus Optikgeräte) (PTC) and the optical biometer IOL‐Master 500 (Carl Zeiss Meditec) (IOLM). Differences between devices in terms of curvature in the flattest (flat K) and steepest meridians (steep K) as well as in the magnitude (AST) and power vector components of astigmatism (J0 and J45) were evaluated. The interchangeability between devices was evaluated with the Bland–Altman method. Results Statistically significant differences between devices were found in steep K and flat K (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences between devices were found in AST (p = 0.057) and J0 power vector (p = 0.185). However, differences between devices in J45 did reach statistical significance (p = 0.039). Ranges of agreement for curvature measures ranged from 0.123 (flat K, CAS‐PTC) to 0.165 mm (steep K, CAS‐PTC). Ranges for the magnitude of astigmatism were 0.868, 1.059 and 0.739 D in CAS‐IOLM, PTC‐IOLM and CAS‐PTC comparisons, respectively. For J0 and J45, ranges of agreement were below 0.522 D. Conclusions Measurements of central corneal curvature and astigmatism obtained with the three devices evaluated cannot be used interchangeably.

show abstract

Comparative Evaluation of Topographic Parameters Using Three Different Topographers in Keratoconic and Cross-linked Keratoconic Corneas

Chauhan,

Kamalakannan,

Upadhyay

et al. 2024

J Refract Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the parameters of three different topographic devices (Pentacam HR, Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH; Sirius, Costruzione Strumenti Oftalmici; and Cassini, i-Optics) in grading the severity of keratoconus in cross-linked and non-cross-linked eyes. Methods: This was a prospective comparative interventional study done in a tertiary eye care center, wherein 114 eyes of 68 patients with keratoconus were divided into two groups: 62 eyes that were observed and 52 eyes that were cross-linked. All eyes were evaluated on all three topographers at baseline, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up. Results: The Sirius showed significantly lower values of mean flat keratometry in comparison to the Pentacam HR (limits of agreement [LoA]: 1.75 to 3.51%) and Cassini (LoA: 1.75 to 3.51%). The mean steep keratometry values were higher for the Cassini in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 4.39 to 7.02%) and Sirius (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean steep keratometry values of the Sirius were significantly lower than those of the Pentacam HR and in both the cross-linked and observation groups (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean keratometry values were significantly higher in the Cassini compared to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 8.77%) and significantly lower in the Sirius in comparison to the Pentacam HR (LoA: 3.51 to 6.14%). The mean difference in astigmatism was also statistically significant between the three tomographers in both groups, with the Cassini showing higher values (LoA: 3.51 to 5.26%) and the Sirius lower values than the Pentacam HR (LoA: 5.26 to 6.14%). Conclusions: The authors conclude the three devices cannot be used interchangeably. The Cassini showed better agreement and correlation with the Pentacam HR in the staging of keratoconus, whereas the Sirius tended to underdiagnose and under-stage the disease. [ J Refract Surg . 2024;40(4):e260–e269.]

show abstract

Corneal dioptric power and astigmatism: A comparison between colourcolour light-emitting diode based (Cassini™) and Scheimpflug technology (Pentacam™) topography

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Comparison of Standard and Total Keratometry Astigmatism Measured with three Different Technologies

Comparative analysis of anterior corneal curvature and astigmatism measurements obtained with three different devices

Comparative Evaluation of Topographic Parameters Using Three Different Topographers in Keratoconic and Cross-linked Keratoconic Corneas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About