Enhanced Ectasia Screening: The Need for Advanced and Objective Data

Ambrósio, Renato; Luz, Allan; Lopes, Bernardo; Ramos, Isaac; Belin, Michael W.

doi:10.3928/1081597x-20140218-03

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23,27 These methods were employed to optimize the ability to distinguish normal corneas (normal group) from ectatic cases (keratoconus, VAE-E, and VAE-NT groups) by the combination of parameters from corneal deformation response and tomography, including the CBI 20 and Belin/Ambrósio Deviation (BAD-D). 9,10,18,22,[28][29][30][31] Considering the combined parameters were programmed to have their output values as a continuous number ranging from 0 to 1, a linear regression analysis function was created using only the BAD-D as the input parameter to calculate the Belin/Ambrósio Deviation normalized index (BAD-DI) to facilitate comparisons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The TBI generated by the RF/LOOCV provided greater accuracy for detecting ectasia than other techniques. The TBI was sensitive for detecting subclinical (fruste) ectasia among eyes with normal topography in very asymmetric patients. The TBI may also confirm unilateral ectasia, potentially characterizing the inherent ectasia susceptibility of the cornea, which should be the subject of future studies. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(7):434-443.].

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suspect keratoconus suggests a mild corneal irregularity that may not have presented clinically in terms of reduced visual acuity or biomicroscopic signs. A number of tomographic units serve to display the parameters of keratoconus that help to objectively 34,35 Despite these programs, there remains no clear, reproducible set of parameters that enables the practitioner to confirm suspect or forme fruste keratoconus. These patients remain at risk for progression following keratorefractive surgery and therefore, they represent a significant concern for treating specialists.…”

Section: Suspect Keratoconusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in 2015

Chan

Lawless

Sutton

et al. 2016

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) represents a recent addition to the refractive surgeon's range of procedures. Although there remains a number of similarities to existing techniques in terms of patient selection and treatment parameters, consideration is required to optimise patient outcomes and satisfaction. Here, we review the selection criteria, contraindications, indications and existing published safety and efficacy outcomes.

show abstract

“…A recent case report highlighted the differences in output and screening performance between the Oculyzer and the Pentacam Device when using the same captured data to process output form both machines. 36, 37 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of objective and subjective refractive surgery screening parameters between regular and high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices

Randleman¹,

Akhtar²,

Lynn³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare objective and subjective metrics from regular and high resolution Scheimpflug devices (Pentacam, Oculus, Inc.) to determine their equivalence and interchangeability for refractive surgery screening. Setting Emory Vision at Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA Design Retrospective comparative case series. Methods One hundred eyes from 50 consecutive screened refractive surgery patients evaluated with both high resolution (HR) and regular (REG) devices were evaluated. Objective parameters evaluated included keratometry (K), central corneal thickness (CCT), and device-generated keratoconus screening indices (KI). Evaluations by masked expert reviewers subjectively graded images as normal, suspicious, or abnormal. Results Keratometry values were not significantly different (Anterior K (HR) 1.21 ± 1.13 vs. (REG) 1.15 ± 1.16, P = 0.73, Posterior K (HR) 0.34 ± 0.23 vs. (REG) 0.35 ± 0.23, P = 0.67). CCT was significantly thinner in the HR group (514.7 ± 26.6 vs. 527.6 ± 27.6, p<0.0001) with limits of agreement of −12.9 to +17.5 microns. Most KI were more suspicious for HR than REG except index of height asymmetry (IHA) and index of height deviation (IHD). Subjectively, 60% of cases received the same score, HR was more suspicious in 30%, and REG was more suspicious in 12% of cases, with only slight subjective agreement (kappa = 0.26 to 0.31) between technologies. Conclusions Regular and high resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices generated different objective values and significantly different subjective interpretations with poor inter-reviewer agreement. The high resolution device provided a more conservative overall output. For refractive surgical screening the two devices are not interchangeable.

show abstract

Enhanced Ectasia Screening: The Need for Advanced and Objective Data

Cited by 17 publications

References 5 publications

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

Integration of Scheimpflug-Based Corneal Tomography and Biomechanical Assessments for Enhancing Ectasia Detection

Small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) in 2015

Comparison of objective and subjective refractive surgery screening parameters between regular and high-resolution Scheimpflug imaging devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About